Telangana High Court
Mohammed Akbar, vs Sri. Tafseer Iqbal, on 10 January, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
I.A.No. 3 of 2024
AND
CONTEMPT CASE No. 1911 OF 2024
O R D E R:
Complaining wilful disobedience of the order dated
28.02.2024 in Writ Petition No. 27418 of 2023, petitioner, who
is a third party, filed this Contempt Case.
2. By the order under contempt, this Court dismissed
the Writ Petition, however, directing the 1st respondent to take
into consideration Resolution dated 01.12.2022 and appoint a
full-time CEO within a period of four months from the date of
receipt of a copy of the said order. It is observed therein that
pursuant to the order dated 04.11.2022, the Board had
proposed the names of two individuals and requested the
Government to appoint full-time CEO under Section 23 of the
Waqf Act, 1995 (for short, 'the Act') and as they did not show
any interest to appoint a CEO, the 3rd respondent in the Writ
Petition was appointed as in-charge CEO and the same cannot
be said to be in contravention of Section 23.
3. Petitioner herein who claims to be an interested
person / aggrieved person states that Writ Petition was also filed
by a person interested who is now maintaining lull in the matter
for unknown reasons. It is his grievance that about seven
months elapsed after passing the order under contempt, but
however, the 1st respondent did not appoint a Full time Chief
Executive Officer to Telangana State Waqf Board and instead,
the 1st respondent appointed an Authorised Officer (non-
statutory appointment) to manage the affairs of the Waqf Board
which is resulting in huge loss to the valuable waqf properties.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Telangana State Waqf
Board filed counter-affidavit stating that petitioner is not a party
to the Writ Petition but filed the Contempt Case and he has no
locus to treat himself as an 'interested person' and to file the
Contempt Case. It is stated that the Government of Telangana
issued G.O.Rt.No. 1167, dated 31.08.2024 appointing
Md. Asadullah, Special Grade Deputy Collector, HMDA as Chief
Executive Officer, Waqf Board and on the same day, he
assumed charge; Shaik Liyakat Hussain, Assistant Secretary to
Government was relieved as per G.O.Rt.No.72, dated
12.09.2024. It is stated that they came to know that Writ
petitioner filed implead petition and that petitioner herein, with
an intention to harass the officials of the Waqf Board and to
gain illegally and cause wrongful loss to the waqf Board and to
the established functions of the waqf Board, filed the present
Contempt Case.
5. The Chief Executive Officer also filed the additional
counter reiterating the averments of the earlier counter. It is
stated that since the State Government had already appointed
Md. Asadullah as permanent Chief Executive Officer who has
required qualifications mandated under Section 23 of the Act,
the government has complied with the orders of this Court. It is
stated further that the order under contempt was passed on
28.02.2024 directing the 1st respondent to appoint a full time
CEO within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the
order and the period though was completed by the first week of
July 2024, due to contingent circumstances and administrative
procedures, delay of two months took place which is beyond the
control of the answering respondent.
6. The Chief Executive Officer filed another additional
counter stating that the incumbent rendered thirty five years of
government; now, has been working as Special Grade Deputy
Collector and for October 2024 he has drawn basic pay
Rs.1,15,270/- apart from DA, HRA, CCA, IR, TI, OA, and other
benefits which comes to Rs.1,77,803/- towards net salary. It is
also stated that the incumbent previously discharged functions
as the Chief Executive officer of the Waqf Board on deputation
and had been holding the cadre of Deputy Collector, during the
interregnum period, had been on deputation to General
Administration Department posted as Private Secretary to the
then Deputy Chief Minister and thereafter, Personal Secretary to
Hon'ble Home Minster. Subsequently, he was posted as
Additional Collector (Revenue), Wanaparthy and then to HMDA.
7. The 3rd additional counter was also filed wherein,
the judgment rendered by the High Court of Karnataka in Sri
Shamsuddin v. Sri Haris M Y (ILR 2017 KAR 663) was cited.
In the said judgment, it has been held that it is a settled
position of law that power conferred on a High Court under
Article 215 of the Constitution of India to punish for contempt of
Court must be exercised in accordance with the provisions of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Therefore, having regard to
the provisions of the Act, petition to initiate action for civil
contempt as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act can be
presented only by a party aggrieved, except where the Court
which passed the order has given liberty to third parties, who
are not parties to the order, to initiate action for contempt of
court. It is further held that Section 14 of the Act relates to
procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court
or a High Court and Section 15 of the Act relates to procedure
in the case of a criminal contempt, there are exceptions to the
rule of locus standi relating to civil contempt stated above. The
complainant is not a party to the order in his personal capacity.
As the complainant has presented this petition in his personal
capacity and in his personal name, and not as administrator of
Masjid, he cannot be said to be a party aggrieved. It is relevant
to state that, in the order, no liberty is given to any third party
to initiate action for contempt of Court. Hence, the petition as
brought is not maintainable and is accordingly, dismissed. It is
further stated that the 1st respondent is not liable for having
committed any order as now being erroneously harped upon by
the leave petitioner being third party who does not have any
locus whatsoever.
It is also stated that as per the minutes of the 9th
Board Meeting held on 26.10.2024 conducted in the chambers
of the Hon'ble Chairman, Telangana Waqf Board, they
unanimously considered the agenda as item No.2 and passed
Resolution No. 483 dated 26.10.2024, in order to facilitate the
exercise of statutory duties under Section 25 of the Act, the
incumbent Mr. M Asadullah was appointed as the Chief
Executive Officer being competent to hold the statutory post
under Section 23 of the Act read with Rule 43 of the Telangana
State Waqf Rules, 2022 has already been ratified by the Waqf
Board. The Chairman who has also been erroneously arrayed
as the 3rd respondent by the leave petitioner herein, is not liable
for having committed any contempt as being the collective
decision of the Board.
8. Heard learned Advocate General on behalf of the 1st
respondent. According to him, this Contempt Case is not
maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as there is no wilful
disobedience of the order dated 28.02.2024. It is submitted that
Writ Petition was filed questioning the appointment of the 3rd
respondent therein as in-charge Chief Executive Officer of the
Waqf Board by issuing G.O.Rt.No. 13, dated 19.01.2023 and
continuing him as such without appointing the full-time Chief
Executive Officer as contemplated under Section 23 of the Act.
Learned Advocate General submits that in the meeting of the
Board held on 01.12.2022 in the chambers of Hon'ble
Chairperson, Telangana State Waqf Board, it was resolved that
in compliance with the order in Writ Petition No. 40043 of 2022,
the names of Mr. Mohammed Abdul Hameed, Special Grade
Deputy Director and Sri M.A.Mannan Farooqui, Joint Secretary
/ Additional Secretary, Law Department were proposed with a
request to government to appoint full-time CEO under Section
23 of the Act, however, the above two candidates could not be
appointed as one of them superannuated and the other declined
the position. In view of the same, it is contended that the 1st
respondent has not committed any act of wilful or deliberate
disobedience of the order passed by this Court.
9. From the above, the case of respondents, as could
be culled out, is two-fold: 1) there is no violation of the
procedure stipulated in Section 23 of the Act in appointing CEO
to the Waqf Board; and 2) petitioner being a third party is not
entitled to file the Contempt Case.
10. As regards the competence of petitioner to file
Contempt Case is concerned, learned Senior Counsel Sri Vedula
Venakta Ramana appearing on behalf of learned counsel for
petitioner submits that it is settled legal proposition that
contempt proceedings were intended to ensure compliance with
the orders of the Court and adherence to the rule of law, hence,
contempt proceedings can be initiated by any aggrieved person.
Further, in Girish Mittal v. Parvati V. Sundaram 1, the
Hon'ble Supreme court at para 15, held as under:
(2019) 20 SCC 747
" 15. We do not agree with Mr Gupta that a contempt petition is
maintainable only at the behest of a party to the judgment The directions issued
by this e Court are general in nature and any violation of such directions would
enable an aggrieved party to file a contempt petition."
The Supreme Court had observed that when the directions
issued in a judgment are general in nature, any aggrieved party
(not just the party to the judgment), can file a Contempt petition
when there is violation of such directions.
11. In view of the settled legal position, this Court is of
the view that since the directions issued in Writ Petition are
general in nature, petitioner, though not a party to the order
under contempt, can be said to be an aggrieved person /
interested person to file the Contempt Case.
12. As regards the contention that Section 23 of the Act
is violated in appointing Mr. Asadullah as CEO is concerned,
learned Senior Counsel Sri D.V. Seetharama Murthy appearing
on behalf of the Waqf Board submits that pursuant to the
directions issued by this Court in the Writ Petition, government
issued G.O. Rt.No. 1167, dated 31.08.2024 allocating Mr. Md.
Asadullah, Special Grade Deputy Collector, HMDA and
consequently, G.O.Rt.No. 72, dated 12.09.2024 was issued by
the 1st respondent relieving Sri Liyaquath Hussain, Assistant
Secretary to Government from the post of Authorised Officer,
Telangana Waqf Board with immediate effect. Here, learned
Senior Counsel for petitioner Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana
argues that the said appointment was not in accordance with
Section 23 of the Act and further, it is their case that the so-
called CEO Sri Md. Asadullah had been removed from the post
of CEO by the Waqf Board in its first Board Resolution meeting
held in February 2017 and was repatriated to his parent
department due to the acts committed by him in the absence of
elected Board resulted in huge loss to the waqfs, hence, the
same officer cannot again be posted to such department. It is
also argued by the learned Senior Counsel that now-elected
CEO Asadullah is an officer of Special Grade Deputy Collector
rank and as per G.O.Ms.No. 51, dated 11.06.2021, the said
officer is holding the rank of Special Grade Deputy Collector
which is below the rank of Deputy Secretary to Government,
hence, the appointment of Md. Asadullah as full-time CEO to
Waqf Board clearly violates Section 23.
13. In this context, it is appropriate to extract Section
23, which reads thus:
" 23. Appointment of Chief Executive Officer and his term of
office and other conditions of service.--
(1) There shall be a full-time Chief Executive Officer of the Board
who shall be a Muslim and shall be appointed by the State Government, by
notification in the Official Gazette, from a panel of two names suggested by the Board
and who shall not be below the rank of Deputy Secretary to the State Government,
and in case of non-availability of a Muslim officer of that rank, a Muslim officer of
equivalent rank may be appointed on deputation.
(2) The term of office and other conditions of service of the Chief
Executive Officer shall be such as may be prescribed.
(3) The Chief Executive Officer shall be ex officio Secretary of the
Board and shall be under the administrative control of the Board.
14. Admittedly, Mr. Asadullah is a Special Grade
Deputy Collector which is below the rank of Deputy Secretary to
government and his appointment is not in conformity with
Section 23 of the Act. However, Respondent No.1 counters this
saying that in view of shortage of Muslim officers available, the
Waqf Board ratified appointment of the incumbent Mr. Md.
Asadullah as the CEO, who rendered 35 years of government
service. The Waqf Board had expressed dissatisfaction and
passed Resolution in February 2017 removing Mr. Mohammed
Asadullah from the position of Chief Executive Officer and
repatriated him to his parent department, as such, again
appointing him in the same post is not in accordance with law,
hence, he shall not be entitled to be continued as such. This
Court therefore, is of the opinion that Md. Asadullah be
removed from the post of full time Chief Executive Officer with
immediate effect. There is no such G.O. issued by the Minority
Welfare Department regarding appointment of Mohd. Asadullah.
While temporary arrangement of the 2nd respondent Sri Shaik
Liyakat Husain as in-charge Chief Executive Officer to Waqf
Board does not result in violation of Section 23 of the Act which
provision, admittedly, would come into play only with regard to
appointment of a full-time Chief Executive Officer, but not to
temporary arrangement, he be continued as Chief Executive
Officer, in the interregnum.
15. The Contempt Case is therefore, disposed of in
terms of the order in Writ Petition No. 27418 of 2023.
Respondents are directed to appoint a full-time Chief Executive
Officer within a period of four months from today duly
complying with Section 23 of the Waqf Act, 1995.
16. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any
shall stand closed.
17. This Application has been taken out by the writ
petitioner to implead him as the 4th respondent to the contempt
case. The case put-forward by him is that he being the main
petitioner who filed the Writ Petition is the person-interested,
however, he was not made necessary party deliberately.
18. To the said Application, petitioner in Contempt
Case filed counter stating that writ petitioner has not been
pursuing the cause and has been obstructing administration of
justice on extraneous reasons and he is neither necessary nor
proper party to the Contempt Case. It is stated that he has
locus standi to maintain the Contempt Case.
19. In view of the reasons stated with regard to the
competence of petitioner to file the Contempt Case, in the
preceding paragraphs, this Court feels it appropriate that writ
petitioner is not necessary party for adjudication of this
Contempt Case.
20. The Application is accordingly, dismissed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
10th January 2025
ksld
