Judgment : This Writ Petition has been filed by the Managing Committee Masjid-e-Noor, situated at Suryanagar Colony, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad, represented by its President Mr.Mohd. Fiaz Ahmed, seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the proceeding F.No.139/Hyd/C/2002/Z-1, dated 14.03.2011, issued by the A.P. State Wakf Board-1st respondent, appointing respondents 2 and 3 viz., Mr.L.Habeebullah Khan and Mr.Syed Abdul Hameed, as members of the committee is illegal, void and ultra vires. 2. The petitioner is the Managing Committee of Masjid-e-Noor situated at Suryanagar Colony, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad, which is a wakf institution governed by the Wakf Act, 1995, and it is represented by its President Mr.Mohd. Fiaz Ahmed. A.P. State Wakf Board constituted the Managing Committee for Masjid-e-Noor on 07.10.2009. Thereafter, two vacancies have arisen in the committee. The 1st respondent appointed the respondents 2 and 3 in the two vacancies as members of the managing committee. According to the petitioner, the appointment of the respondents 2 and 3 is contrary to the A.P. Wakfs Managing Committee (Constitutions, Functions and Duties) Regulations, 2009, (for short, ‘the Regulations, 2009). Hence, this writ petition. For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to refer paras. 8 and 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, which read as hereunder: “8. That, the Wakf Board in its meeting has passed resolution bearing No.714/2010, dated 28.12.2010 deferring the appointment of the members of the managing committee till the report has been received by the managing committee but the Wakf Board had passed resolution 852/2011 dated 24.02.2011 resolving to appointing the 2nd and 3rd respondents as members of the managing committee for the remaining term of the managing committee and issued proceeding F.No.139/Hyd/C/2002/Z-1, dated 14.03.2011 appointing the 2nd and 3rd respondents as the members of managing committee in place of the existing vacancies. The petitioner herein filing the copy of the representation dated 01.03.2011, copy of the 1st resolution dated 28.12.2010, copy of the 2nd resolution dated 24.02.2011 are filed herewith and marked as exhibits P-2, P-3, P-4 and P-5 respectively. 9. That, the impugned proceeding has been issued in violation of A.P. Wakfs Managing Committee (constitutions, functions and duties) Regulations, 2009, framed vide G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 15.02.2010, and in violation of Section 67 of the Wakf Act, 1995, and also in violation of principles of natural justice.” 3. Notice before admission came to be issued on 30.03.2011. 9. That, the impugned proceeding has been issued in violation of A.P. Wakfs Managing Committee (constitutions, functions and duties) Regulations, 2009, framed vide G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 15.02.2010, and in violation of Section 67 of the Wakf Act, 1995, and also in violation of principles of natural justice.” 3. Notice before admission came to be issued on 30.03.2011. The petitioner has been permitted to take out personal notice to the respondents 2 and 3. Accordingly, the petitioner took out notices to the respondents 2 and 3 and filed proof of service on 25.04.2011. Despite service of notices on the respondents 2 and 3, they did not choose to enter appearance either in person or through a counsel. 4. The 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 15.02.2010, which has been notified in the Gazette, dt.15.02.2010, is not applicable to the instant case as the Committee constituted earlier was composition of members from ‘A’ panel and ‘B’ panel. The petitioner has not questioned the proceeding issued on 07.10.2009, whereunder two groups have been accommodated. Since the vacancies have arisen in the ‘B’ panel, the Board considered the respondents 2 and 3, who have been nominated by ‘B’ panel, and included their names in the committee. Therefore, there is no flaw in appointing the respondents 2 and 3 as members of the managing committee. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the vacancies in the managing committee of the petitioner are required to be filled up in accordance with Rule 16 of the Regulations, 2009, and as the nomination of the respondents 2 and 3 is not in accordance with the Regulations, 2009, the proceeding issued on 14.03.2011 appointing the respondents 2 and 3 as members of the managing committee is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel took me to Rule 16 of the Regulations, 2009, which reads as hereunder: “16. Filling up of vacancy:- (1) In case any vacancy arises due to resignation, death or otherwise shall be filled up by the nomination by the committee by a unanimous resolution and intimate the same to the Board for approval. Learned counsel took me to Rule 16 of the Regulations, 2009, which reads as hereunder: “16. Filling up of vacancy:- (1) In case any vacancy arises due to resignation, death or otherwise shall be filled up by the nomination by the committee by a unanimous resolution and intimate the same to the Board for approval. (2) Where any complaint is received against the functioning of the committee and there is a prima facie or where the conduct of the committee is against the interest of the Wakf, the Board in exercise of the powers under Section 67(2) of the Wakf Act proceeds to supersede the committee.” 7. Learned standing counsel for Wakf Board appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the vacancies have arisen from the ‘B’ group and therefore, the said vacancies have been filled up basing on the recommendations made by the ‘B’ panel members and in which case, there is no flaw in appointing the respondents 2 and 3 as members of the managing committee of the petitioner. 8. It is not in dispute that the Government framed Regulations, 2009, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 110 of the Wakf Act, 1995, with regard to the appointment of managing committee of the Wakf institutions. Rule 16 deals with the filling up of the vacancies. It is evident from Rule 16 that any vacancies that have arisen after the enforcement of the Regulations, 2009, shall be filled up by the nomination by the committee by an unanimous resolution. Indisputably, there is no unanimous resolution nominating the respondents 2 and 3 to the committee. The records produced by the 1st respondent indicate that the respondents 2 and 3 came to be appointed as members of the managing committee basing on the recommendation made by the ‘B’ panel members. Once the Regulations, 2009, came into force, there cannot be any ‘A’ or ‘B’ panel and the recommendation must be by an unanimous resolution. Since the appointment of the respondents 2 and 3 is contrary to the Regulations, 2009, the proceeding impugned in this Writ Petition is liable to be quashed. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed quashing the proceeding F.No.139/Hyd/C/2002/Z11, dated 14.03.2011, issued by the A.P. State Wakf Board-1st respondent, whereunder respondents 2 and 3 viz., Mr.L.Habeebullah Khan and Mr.Syed Abdul Hameed, have been appointed as members of the committee.No costs.