Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 306 (AP)

P. v. H. Imran Hussain VS State of Andhra Pradesh

2019-11-06

J.K.MAHESHWARI, U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2019
JUDGMENT : J.K. Maheshwari, J. 1. Sri Abdul Muqeeth Qureshi for the appellant. 2. Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare for respondent No. 1. Sri S. Arijullah, Standing Counsel for respondent No. 2. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No. 3. 3. Arising out of the order dated 11.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No. 20798 of 2018, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant/petitioner, inter alia, stating the fact that, upholding the order of suspension, which was challenged by him, is passed on incorrect finding and wrong interpretation of Section 64 as well Sections 70 & 71 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"); therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge may be set aside. 4. After hearing learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the order of suspension, it reveals that the inquiry, as contemplated against the appellant/petitioner, is on the basis of the fact that he has not performed his duties properly in furnishing income and expenditure accounts and its budget. The context of the said inquiry falls under Clause 64(1)(g) & (i) of the Act, ibid. If we see the provision of Section 70 of the Act, then, it contemplates an inquiry with respect to administration of the Wakf, on an application made to the Board by any person. However, on such application, the inquiry as per the procedure prescribed under Section 71 ought to be conducted. But, in case the context relates to Section 64, then as per sub-section (3) thereto, the inquiry ought to be contemplated into the matter in the manner prescribed and decision should be taken by the Board on majority. To carry out the purpose of the Act, Rules have been framed, which are known as A.P. Wakf Rules, 2000. Rule 24-A of the said Rules prescribes the manner of holding inquiry. However, the scope of Sections 70 and 71 of the Act, is entirely different to the context to which the order of suspension has been passed. But, simultaneously, for the allegations, to which the inquiry has been contemplated and the order of suspension has been passed, at present, without having any sufficient material, during pendency of such inquiry, this Court is not inclined to deal with the issue. But, simultaneously, for the allegations, to which the inquiry has been contemplated and the order of suspension has been passed, at present, without having any sufficient material, during pendency of such inquiry, this Court is not inclined to deal with the issue. However, considering Rule 24-A(iv) of the said Rules, it is suffice to observe that the inquiry officer, who is conducting inquiry in furtherance to the notice issued to the appellant/petitioner, may complete the inquiry. 5. In view of the foregoing observations, the interference in the order of suspension is declined, affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge, with the observation as made hereinabove, and with a further direction that the inquiry, as contemplated against the appellant/petitioner, be now completed by the Board within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 6. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.