JUDGMENT : C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order passed by this Court on 27.01.2020 in W.P.No.14121 of 2019, wherein the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition holding the termination of the Writ Petitioner bad in law, as it was not preceded by any preliminary enquiry and no opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the order of termination, the respondents therein preferred the present Writ Appeal. 2. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition show that the petitioner was working as Pesh-Imam of the appellant masjid since 1996. The appellant institute was notified by Waqf Board in the year 2017 and a new committee was appointed vide proceedings, dated 14.11.2017, for a period of two years. It is said that the petitioner was unanimously elected by congregation (jamath) as he possesses highest qualification, being Alim. According to him, the Government makes a monthly payment for Rs.8,000/-as salary, which is in addition to the amount of Rs.2,000/-towards honorarium. As the amount of honorarium paid is less than what is stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.21, Minorities Welfare (IDM) Department, dated 08.06.2016, a notice was issued to the 4th respondent (appellant herein). Pursuant thereto, the 4th respondent issued a letter, dated 05.09.2019, stating that the services of the petitioner stand terminated, as his behaviour is not up to the mark. 3. Challenging the action of the authorities in terminating his services vide proceedings, dated 05.09.2019, a Writ Petition came to be filed. After hearing all concerned and more particularly, taking into consideration the averments made in the counter by the 4th respondent, learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the proceedings, dated 05.09.2019. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed. 4. Sri Sharfuddin, learned counsel appearing for the Managing Committee of the mosque, mainly submits that order of the learned Single Judge is not in accordance with law. According to him, Pesh-Imam is a prayer leader and his appointment as a prayer leader is considered desirable, but not always obligatory as per Islamic law. It is urged that Pesh-Imam, besides being a free, honest person, must be authoritative in religious matters. He is also expected to maintain dignity. According to him, Pesh-Imam is a prayer leader and his appointment as a prayer leader is considered desirable, but not always obligatory as per Islamic law. It is urged that Pesh-Imam, besides being a free, honest person, must be authoritative in religious matters. He is also expected to maintain dignity. Since the appellant mosque is a private mosque, appointment of Pesh-Imam is made by the members of the congregation through majority voting and as such, the question of issuing any notice to the petitioner would not arise. In other words, his plea is that this being a private mosque, the appellant committee appointed the writ petitioner as Pesh-Imam (prayer leader) to lead the prayers on honorarium. As the Writ Petitioner (1st respondent herein) is not appointed by the Waqf Board, the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995 would not apply to his appointment and the removal is within the domain of the appellant herein. Since the Pesh-Imam was appointed on temporary basis; as his acts were bringing disrepute to the mussallies of the said mosque; and to protect the dignity of the post of Pesh-Imam, submits that learned Single Judge erred in interfering with the order of termination. 5. On the other hand, Sri Shaik Karimullah, learned Standing Counsel for the Waqf Board and Sri S.M.Subhani, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent (writ petitioner) mainly submit that the proceedings, dated 14.11.2017, issued by Waqf Board clearly show that Azeemuddin Masjid, situated at Azeemuddin Nagar, Kurnool, is a notified Waqf Institution. The said proceedings, dated 14.11.2017, refer to constitution of a committee under the presidentship of Janab Haji S.Md.Jaffar Saheb for two years under Section 18 of the Waqf Act, 1995, from the date of issuing of the proceedings in respect of the mosque in dispute. Hence, submit that the order impugned requires no interference. 6. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the proceedings issued by the Azeemuddin Masjid Committee on 05.09.2019, is legal and valid? 7. Hence, submit that the order impugned requires no interference. 6. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the proceedings issued by the Azeemuddin Masjid Committee on 05.09.2019, is legal and valid? 7. In order to appreciate the same, it would be useful to extract the English translation of the letter, dated 05.09.2019, which is as under : “NOTICE BOARD AZEEMUDDIN MASJID COMMITTEE (Azeemuddin Nagar, Kurnool City & Dist – 518003, A.P.) President Secretary Janab Haji S.Md.Jaffer Saheb Basha Janab Haji Dr.S.K.Khaleel Cell : 9701867919 9700789688 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Date : 31.08.2019 05.09.2019 Kurnool It is informed to the members and Mukadies of Azeemuddin committee, that as the behaviour of Imam Khaja is not good, he is terminated. From today onwards there is no relation between Kaja Imam and this masjid. New Imam was appointed. -Sd/- -Sd/- Secretary, President -Sd/- Member -Sd/- Vice President -Sd/- Member -Sd/- Member” 8. From a perusal of the said letter it is clear that it contains two dates. In the original letter, which is in telugu, the typed date ‘31.08.2019’ was rounded off and a new date ‘05.09.2019’ was handwritten. The letter is said to have been issued by the masjid committee containing the names of President and Secretaries of that committee. The letter, which was pasted on the notice board of the mosque, does not reflect giving of notice or opportunity to the writ petitioner to explain his case. On the ground that the behaviour of the writ petitioner was not good, he is said to have been terminated stating that from that day onwards, there is no relationship between Khaja Imam and the Masjid. 9. The main plank of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that this being a private mosque, it has nothing to do with the Waqf Board and as the Writ Petitioner (1st respondent herein) was appointed only on payment of honorarium and on temporary basis, their action cannot be challenged. 10. 9. The main plank of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that this being a private mosque, it has nothing to do with the Waqf Board and as the Writ Petitioner (1st respondent herein) was appointed only on payment of honorarium and on temporary basis, their action cannot be challenged. 10. But, a perusal of the proceedings, dated 14.11.2017, issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Board, Vijayawada, would clearly show that a committee consisting of President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer and Members was constituted for the management of this mosque i.e., Azeemuddin Masjid, situated at Azeemuddin Nagar, Kurnool Town, for a period of two years, and the name of the 1st respondent – writ petitioner do figure as a Member of the committee in the proceedings, dated 14.11.2017, issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Board, Vijayawada. It may be true that the term of the Members might have expired by now, but, as stated above, a reading of the said letter indicate that a committee was constituted by the Waqf Board under Section 18 of the Waqf Act, 1995. If really the appellant is a private institution/private mosque; that provisions of the Waqf Act are not applicable and that it is not under the control of the Waqf Board, the appellant would have challenged the same at the earliest point of time. No material has been placed on record to show that these proceedings were challenged before any authority. At this stage it is also to be noticed that the President of the said society, namely, Haji S.Md.Jaffar Saheb, the appellant herein, represents the Managing Committee of the Azeemuddin Mosque. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant became the President of the committee for managing the affairs of the mosque pursuant to proceedings, dated 14.11.2017 issued by the Waqf Board. Hence, the argument that it is purely a private mosque and that it has nothing to do with the waqf or the Waqf Board cannot be accepted, when the letter, dated 14.11.2017, issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Board, Vijayawada, is staring at the appellant. Further, the Inspector Auditor, A.P. State Wakf Board, Collectorate, Kurnool, in its letter, dated 29.08.2019, categorically states that Azeemuddin masjid is a notified mosque. Further, the Inspector Auditor, A.P. State Wakf Board, Collectorate, Kurnool, in its letter, dated 29.08.2019, categorically states that Azeemuddin masjid is a notified mosque. It was informed to him that Pesh-Imam is creating nuisance and problems at masjid and requested to settle the matter. Hence, a report came to be lodged before the II Town Police Station, Kurnool, for taking necessary action against Pesh-Imam, for maintaining peaceful atmosphere in the locality of the masjid and at the time of offering prayers. Therefore, these two proceedings clearly indicate that this mosque is under the control of the Waqf Board. Otherwise, there was no necessity for the Waqf Board to lodge a report before the Station House Officer on 29.8.2019 and for the Waqf Board to appoint the Managing Committee for managing affairs of the masjid. 11. Since the order came to be passed without putting the writ petitioner to notice and without calling for any explanation, the order of the learned Single Judge in setting aside the proceedings cannot be found fault with. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, leaving it open to the authorities to take steps in accordance with law. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.