ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..issue a writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing its order in F.No.05/KDP/K/GOPAVARAM/2022, dated 14.10.2022 in appointing the unofficial respondent Nos.4 and 5 and others as illegal, arbitrary and against the law and principles of natural justice and consequently to quash the said order of the 2nd respondent and to suspend the order of the 2nd respondent in F.No.05/KDP/K/ GOPAVARAM/2022,dated 14.10.2022 pending disposal of the above writ petition…..” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner society was established prior to 1999 with an object to establish a mosque and accordingly the president of the society purchased Ac.0.14 ¼ cents under an agreement of sale dated 03.06.1999 and later sold Ac.0.03 cents out of it to pay the sale consideration. Later, the society with its own money and also by collecting donations constructed Masjid-A-Noor in the said Ac.0.11 ¼ cents site including compound wall and ever since the society has been looking after the affairs of the said Masjid. Later, realizing necessity, the society got itself registered with the Registrar of Societies, Proddatur as Masjid-A-Noor Committee on 28.02.2017 and later it was renewed on 20.11.2021. The society paid salaries to Imam and Mouzans of the Masjid till 26.11.2017 and thereafter the 2nd respondent began to sanction honorarium to Imam and Mouzans. Having come to know that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were collecting donations from public in the name of petitioner society by impersonating the petitioner society as Noor Masjid Committee, the petitioner made a representation to the Registrar of Societies, Proddatur appraising the facts and requesting not to register any society. As some unscrupulous persons of the community and the 3rd respondent started laying adverse claim against the society, the petitioner made a representation dated 17.01.2022 to the 3rd respondent to stop depositing honorarium, but the 3rd respondent did not stop. It is the further case of the petitioner that, they recently learnt that the 3rd respondent addressed a letter to the Branch Manager, A.P.Grameena Bank, Gopavaram Branch to permit the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to operate the account of Masjid-E-Noor. The respondent Nos. It is the further case of the petitioner that, they recently learnt that the 3rd respondent addressed a letter to the Branch Manager, A.P.Grameena Bank, Gopavaram Branch to permit the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to operate the account of Masjid-E-Noor. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and their men started obstructing the musallies from approaching the Masjid stating that they were appointed as Managing Committee and on 01.11.2022, the 3rd respondent proclaimed outside the mosque that the respondent Nos.4, 5 and others are the new Managing Committee and affixed the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent on the wall of the mosque. The petitioner society was formed as per law the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no right to appoint a new Managing Committee and at the instance of the MLA, Proddatur, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, issued impugned proceedings appointing a bogus committee. When the petitioner society is in existence and has been the Managing committee, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot appoint any new committee without following the due process of law and that too in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 3. The second respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the writ affidavit, interalia contending that, the petitioner being a registered society is a juridical person but not a natural person, has no locus standi to file this writ petition and on this sole ground the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The Waqf Board is an autonomous body to appoint Managing Committee to manage the affairs of the waqf institution and accordingly it had appointed the Managing Committee and pursuantly Section 18 of the waqf Act authorizes them to operate the bank account and the affairs of the Masjid. Hence prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the writ affidavit, interaliacontending that, the petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition and he was never authorized to maintain the subject masjid. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 were appointed as Managing Committee, under the Andhra Pradesh Wakfs Managing Committee (constitutions, Functions and Duties) Regulations, 2009, by the Chief Executive Officer, as per the procedure. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 were appointed as Managing Committee, under the Andhra Pradesh Wakfs Managing Committee (constitutions, Functions and Duties) Regulations, 2009, by the Chief Executive Officer, as per the procedure. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard Sri Syed Kaleemulla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Md.Gayasuddin, learned Standing counsel for Wakf Board, for respondent Nos.2 & 3 and Sri Shaik Kariumllah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 and the learned Government Pleader for Minorities and Welfare Department for respondent No.1. 6. Sri Syed Kaleemulla, learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration, would submit that, the 2nd respondent, without any right or authority and without issuing any notice to the petitioner society, which has purchased the site and constructed the Masjid therein and was managing the affairs of the Mosque right from its inception, in utter violation of the principles of natural justice, has appointed the respondent Nos.4 and 5 as President and vice president of the Masjid vide impugned proceedings. Thus, the proceedings impugned are unsustainable and are liable to be quashed. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition. In support of his contention that the petitioner society having been registered under the Societies Registration Act is a juristic person and the same can sue or be sued and thus the writ petition filed by a society for redressal of the grievance is maintainable, the learned counsel relied on Masjid-E-Islammabad etc., vs. The Karnataka Board of Wakf and others etc., 1980 SCC OnLine Kar 366. 7. Sri Md.Gayasuddin, learned Standing Counsel, in elaboration would submit that, the petitioner being a society is only a juridical person but not a natural person is not entitled to maintain the writ petition and hence the writ petition is not maintainable, since not covered by the word ‘person interested’ as defined by section 3(k) of the Wakf Act, 1995. The learned Standing Counsel would further contend that, permanent dedication of any movable or immovable property for any purpose recognised by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable assumes the character of ‘wakf’, purchase of the property and construction of the mosque by the society would not change the character of the property being ‘wakf’. The learned Standing Counsel would further contend that, permanent dedication of any movable or immovable property for any purpose recognised by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable assumes the character of ‘wakf’, purchase of the property and construction of the mosque by the society would not change the character of the property being ‘wakf’. When once it is ‘wakf’, the Wakf Act empowers the Wakf Board, the power to appoint the Managing Committee to manage the affairs of the subject mosque and accordingly the 2nd respondent appointed the respondent Nos.4 and 5 as President and Vice President of the subject Mosque. There is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in issuance of the impugned proceedings. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. In support of his contention that the society not being a natural person but only a juristic person cannot be treated as a ‘person interested in the wakf’ and hence cannot maintain the writ petition, the learned Standing Counsel relied on the decision in Madrasa Ahle Sunnath Bahrul Uloon vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2004) 2 AndhLD 365. 8. Sri Shaik Karimulla, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 & 5, reiterating the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel, further contended that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 were appointed under the Andhra Pradesh Wakfs Managing Committee (Constitutions, Functions and Duties) Regulations, 2009 by following the procedure by the 2nd respondent. The disgruntled, such as the petitioner, are interfering with the affairs of the Masjid Committee and the present writ petition is nothing the extension of such illegal interference. There are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Perused the material place on record. In support of its contention that the petitioner society has purchased the property and constructed the mosque, they placed on record the agreement to sell, whereby the site covered by the mosque was stated to have been purchased. The counter affidavits filed by the respondents do not offer any resistance to the said contention, except denial. Thereby it is safe to conclude that the petitioner society has purchased the site and constructed the subject mosque. 10. The counter affidavits filed by the respondents do not offer any resistance to the said contention, except denial. Thereby it is safe to conclude that the petitioner society has purchased the site and constructed the subject mosque. 10. Section 3(r) of the Wakf Act, 1995 defines ‘wakf’, as follows: “3(r) “wakf” means the permanent dedication by a person professing Islam, of any movable or immovable property for any purpose recognised by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and includes— (i) a wakf by user but such wakf shall not cease to be a wakf by reason only of the user having ceased irrespective of the period of such cesser; (ii) “grants”, including mashrut-ul-khidmat for any purpose recognised by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable; and (iii) a wakf-alal-aulad to the extent to which the property is dedicated for any purpose recognised by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable, and “wakif” means any person making such dedication;” 11. The contents of the writ affidavit in clear and unambiguous terms delineates that the Mosque was constructed with the own money of the petitioner society and also by collection of donations. Needless to say that construction of mosque would be primarily for religious purpose. Thus, there was creation of ‘wakf’ as per the definition given in Section 3(r) of the Wakf Act, 1995. Therefore, the Wakf Board is empowered to constitute the Managing Committee to manage the affairs of the wakf institution. 12. Regarding the competence of the petitioner society to maintain the writ petition, it is apt to extract section 3(k) of the Wakf Act, 1995, which describes ‘person interested in a wakf’ as follows: “3(k) “person interested in a wakf” means any person who is entitled to receive any pecuniary or other benefits from the wakf and includes— (i) any person who has a right to worship or to perform any religious rite in a mosque, idgah, imambara, dargah, khangah, maqbara, graveyard or any other religious institution connected with the wakf or to participate in any religious or charitable institution under the wakf; (ii) the wakif and any descendant of the wakif and the mutawalli;” 13. In the decision in Masjid-E-Islammabad etc. (supra 1), the Karnataka High Court held as follows: “14. Under the Societies Registration Act, the name of the institution that is registered is Masjid-E-Islammabad. In the decision in Masjid-E-Islammabad etc. (supra 1), the Karnataka High Court held as follows: “14. Under the Societies Registration Act, the name of the institution that is registered is Masjid-E-Islammabad. The same institution has also been registered as a wakf in the register of wakfs maintained by respondent No. 1 and that institution is the petitioner in this writ petition. A registered society and a wakf are legal entities and juristic persons and they can sue and be sued is not and cannot be disputed by respondent No. 1. A registered society or a wakf are not living persons and can only be represented by the living persons. Whether a society or a wakf has been properly represented or hot does not touch on the question whether the society or the wakf is suing or has filed a petition before this Court. A mosque or a place of worship is not a legal entity and cannot sue, can hardly be doubted. But, in the present case, the petitioner is not the mosque though the mosque owned by the society, or the wakf is also called by the same name. In this view, the objection urged by Sri Rao that the mosque is the petitioner before this Court being factually incorrect, the legal contention based thereto has no merit. 15. Under S. 15 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act of 1960 that is now in force, a registered society may sue or be sued in the name of the President, Chairman or Principal Secretary or the Trustees as shall be determined by the rules and regulations of the society and, in default, of such determination, in the name of such person as shall be appointed by the governing body for the occasion. A copy of the rules and regulations of the society furnished to the Court by Sri Albal, does not appear to specifically deal with the subject of suing the society. Whether the governing body of the society has authorised Sri Musheer Ahamed Qureshi the Secretary of the society to file his petition cannot be gahered from the pleadings. In my view, such an objection should have been taken by the office itself before registering the petition. At this belated stage, it would not be proper to raise this objection either by the Court or by any person and throw out the petition solely on that ground. In my view, such an objection should have been taken by the office itself before registering the petition. At this belated stage, it would not be proper to raise this objection either by the Court or by any person and throw out the petition solely on that ground. In the circumstances that have developed it would be proper to assume that Musheer Ahamed Qureshi has been authorised to file this petition and he has filed the same with the authority of the governing body on behalf of the society and the petition so filed is competent. 16. At any rate, the society has been registered as a wakf under the Act. A wakf which is a juristic person can sue in its name represented by its mutawalli which term is defined by S. 3(f) of the Act. Whether all the other office bearers of the society would also fall within the meaning of the term mutawalli and should have joined or should have been made parties is a matter of procedure and is not a matter of substance that touches on the maintainability of the petition. For these reasons, I hold that the petitioner in Writ Petition 6888 of 1980 is the registered society which is also a wakf and is not a mosque or place of worship and, therefore, this petition is maintainable.” 14. In the above decision, it has been held that since the society has been registered as a wakf, which is a juristic person, the same can sue in its name represented by its mutawalli. 15. In the decision in Madrasa Ahle Sunnath Bahrul Uloon, Visakhapatnam(supra 2) relied on by the learned Standing counsel, this Court while it was at Hyderabad, held as follows: “6. It is obvious that ‘person’ in the above definition is natural person and not a juristic person. Hence, a company, or an incorporated body with perpetual succession cannot be treated as “person interested” in wakf. Admittedly the petitioner is a society interested in educational and economic welfare of Muslims. It does not claim to be a person interested as per clause (i) of sub-section (k) of Section 3 of the Act nor does it claim as wakif, descendant of wakif or mutawalli. No material is placed before this Court to show that petitioner is in any manner connected with Hazrath Syed Ali Ishaq Madina Vali Dargah. It does not claim to be a person interested as per clause (i) of sub-section (k) of Section 3 of the Act nor does it claim as wakif, descendant of wakif or mutawalli. No material is placed before this Court to show that petitioner is in any manner connected with Hazrath Syed Ali Ishaq Madina Vali Dargah. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, petitioner cannot be treated as “person interested” in the wakf. At its instance, therefore, this Writ Petition would not lie. It is well settled principle of judicial review that the power can be exercised only at the instance of aggrieved party. Every person, be it natural person or juristic person remotely connected with the case cannot be conferred with locus standi to invoke this Court's power of judicial review. The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.” 16. In the above decision, it has been observed that ‘person’ defined in Section 3(k) is a natural person and not a juristic person and the power of judicial review can only be exercised only at the instance of the aggrieved party and every person remotely connected with the case cannot be conferred with locus standi to invoke the power of judicial review. 17. In the case on hand, the petitioner society is registered under the Societies Registration Act, but not as a wakf and that the society is represented by its President but not either by wakif, descendant of wakif or mutawalli. Thus, the petitioner society cannot be termed as a ‘person interested in the wakf’ as defined under sub section (k) of Section 3 of the Act. Thus, the observations made in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Further, the petitioner being a juristic but not a natural person and that too not represented by the persons referred to in sub-section (ii) of Section 3(k) of the Act, 1995, it cannot maintain the writ petition. The observations made in the decision relied on by the learned standing counsel are applicable to the facts of the case. 18. In view of the above, the Writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner has no locus standi to question the impugned proceedings and it cannot main the writ petition. 19. The observations made in the decision relied on by the learned standing counsel are applicable to the facts of the case. 18. In view of the above, the Writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner has no locus standi to question the impugned proceedings and it cannot main the writ petition. 19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As sequel thereto, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.