Mohd. Saleem Ahmed vs Mohammed Akif Safvan
2023 Latest Caselaw 2320 Tel

    THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                               AND

    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR


                 WRIT APPEAL No.878 of 2023


JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)


      Mr. Shafath Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the

appellants.

      Mr. Mirza Nisar Ahmed Baig, learned counsel for

respondent No.1.

      Mr. M.Roopender, learned Government Pleader for Home

for respondent No.2.

      Mr. Pattipaka Ram Prasad, learned Government Pleader

for Social Welfare Department for respondent No.3.

      Mr.     Abu   Akram,    learned    Standing    Counsel   for

respondent No.4.


      2.      With consent of the parties, the matter is heard

finally.


      3.      This intra court appeal has been filed against an

order dated 18.07.2023 passed by learned Single Judge of
                               ::2::



this Court, by which writ petition preferred by respondent

No.1 has been allowed and the election of the appellants who

are the members of the Managing Committee constituted by

the Wakf Board has been set aside.


     4.    Facts

giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that respondent No.1/writ petitioner filed a writ

petition namely W.P.No.38834 of 2022, in which validity of

order dated 06.08.2022 issued by Chief Executive Officer,

Telangana State Wakf Board was challenged. Respondent

No.1/writ petitioner did not implead the appellants initially.

However, subsequently on 21.10.2022, an application seeking

their impleadment namely I.A.No.2 of 2022 was filed.

5. The aforesaid application was allowed on

18.07.2023 and on the same day, learned Single Judge

passed a separate order dated 18.07.2023 and allowed the

writ petition preferred by respondent No.1. The result of the

direction issued by learned Single Judge is that the election of

the appellants who are the Managing Committee which was

constituted by the Wakf Board has been set aside.

::3::

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised a

similar contention that the impugned order has been passed

without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for

respondents have supported the order passed by the learned

Single Judge.

8. We have considered the submissions made on

both sides and have perused the record of Writ Petition

No.38834 of 2022.

9. From perusal of the record, it is evident that no

notice of I.A.No.2 of 2022 was issued to the appellants and

the same was allowed only on 18.07.2023. On the same day

by a separate order, learned Single Judge has allowed the writ

petition preferred by respondent No.1. Thus, from perusal of

the record of the writ petition, it is apparent that neither any

notice of the writ petition was issued to the appellants nor

they were heard.

10. For the aforementioned reasons, impugned order

dated 18.07.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in ::4::

W.P.No.38834 of 2022 cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

It is accordingly set aside. Learned Single Judge shall hear

the parties including the appellants and thereafter shall deal

with the writ petition.

11. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

_______________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

_______________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J

Date: 13.09.2023 KL