APHC010490782021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WP(PIL) NO: 238 of 2021 Bench Sr.No:-10 [3552] Mohammed Farooq Shubli ...Petitioner Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: MD SALEEM PASHA Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr.VARUN BYREDDY, Mr.Pasala Ponna Rao, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE, Mrs.S PRANATHI, Mr.SHAIK KHAJA BASHA CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 8th April 2026 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Petitioner in present public interest litigation assails G.O.Ms.No.16, Minorities Welfare (SDM) Department, dated 25.11.2021, purported to have been issued by exercising powers conferred under Section 83(1) of Waqf Act, 1995, inter alia, setting up Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Tribunal at Kurnool having jurisdiction over State of Andhra Pradesh to be illegal, arbitrary, 2 HCJ & CGR, J W.P.(PIL) No.238 of 2021 unconstitutional and detrimental to the rights of minorities and consequently to set aside the same. 2. (a) It is the case of petitioner that after bifurcation of State of Andhra Pradesh, in pursuance to A.P. State Reorganization Act, 2014, High Court of Andhra Pradesh came to be established on 01.01.2019 at Amaravati, located centrally within reach for all the litigants in the State of Andhra Pradesh. (b) It is stated that the Amaravati Capital was mooted with idea of having multiple micro cities within itself, one such being Justice City to consist of all judicial establishments at one place. (c) It is also stated that various other institutions concerning upliftment of minorities within the State of Andhra Pradesh, such as A.P. State Waqf Board, A.P. State Haj Committee, A.P. State Minority Finance Corporation, Centre for Education Development of Minorities, A.P. State Urdu Academy, A.P. State Minority Commission, A.P. State Dudekula Corporation and A.P. State Shaik Corporation, have all been established either at Vijayawada or Mangalagiri, which are centrally located within the State of Andhra Pradesh. 3 HCJ & CGR, J W.P.(PIL) No.238 of 2021 (d) It is also stated that after bifurcation of State, which came to be notified w.e.f. 02.06.2014, A.P. Waqf Tribunal came to be notified vide G.O.Ms.No.18, Minorities Welfare (SDM) Department, dated 30.03.2016, with the seat of place at Vijayawada, however, it was not made functional by appointing necessary Presiding Officer and supporting staff. That being so, the 1st respondent had issued impugned G.O. exercising powers under Section 83(1) of A.P. Waqf Act, 1995, notifying the seat of place of A.P. State Waqf Tribunal at Kurnool, to have jurisdiction over the State of Andhra Pradesh. Not only the said institution, but it is also stated that the Government had set up A.P. Human Rights Commission and A.P. Lokayukta, with seat of place at Kurnool, even before notifying aforesaid impugned G.O. In that background, present Public Interest Litigation came to be instituted. (e) The 1st respondent filed counter trying to justify the decision so made in having seat of place of A.P. State Waqf Board at Kurnool. 3. Heard Mr.Md.Saleem Pasha, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr.Shaik Khaja Basha, learned standing counsel for 4 HCJ & CGR, J W.P.(PIL) No.238 of 2021 3rd respondent, Mrs.S.Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader, representing the respondents 1, 2 and 4 and Sri Varun Byreddy, learned counsel for 6th respondent. 4. (a) Learned counsel for petitioner, while reiterating the averments and contentions raised in the public interest litigation, urged that except for A.P. State Waqf Board rest of all other institutions concerning the Muslim Minorities since have been located in and around Vijayawada and Amaravati, being centrally located, in order to have not only administrative convenience but also in best interest of all stakeholders, it would have been more appropriate for the Tribunal also located in proximity rater than at Kurnool. Therefore, the impugned G.O. was issued without proper application of mind. (b) He also contended that the decision to have A.P. Waqf Tribunal at Kurnool would be detrimental to the interest of minorities for the reason that the stakeholders intending to avail remedies by approaching Waqf Tribunal would be geographically at a disadvantageous position as the seat is not centrally located, unlike rest of other institutions concerning the muslim minorities. 5 HCJ & CGR, J W.P.(PIL) No.238 of 2021 5. (a) Mrs.S.Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents 1, 2 and 4 has taken this Court through the counter filed by 1st respondent and would submit that there is substantial empirical data which came to be considered and analyzed before arriving at the decision to have seat of place of Waqf Tribunal at Kurnool, hence decision so made can’t be found fault with. (b) It is stated that as against 3502 notified Waqf Institutions within the State nearly 1104 such institutions were falling within Kurnool District alone, besides the neighbouring four other Districts i.e., SPSR Nellore District, Chittoor District, Anantapur District and YSR Kadapa District had 208, 186, 330 and 227 such institutions. In all, 2105 notified institutions were in and around the notified seat and place, which constituted almost 60% of total institutions when compared with the total notified institutions in all the 13 Districts. Similarly, as against 65783.83 acres of land notified to be Waqf, an extent of 22599.9 acres of land fell within Kurnool District, besides an extent of 1279.5 acres, 6671 acres, 10340 acres and 1960.27 acres fell in the other four neighbouring Districts as above. In total 42,850.67 acres, translating into 65%, was falling in and around the seat of place at Kurnool. 6 HCJ & CGR, J W.P.(PIL) No.238 of 2021 (c) Likewise, even the details of the number of cases instituted before Waqf Tribunal qua the 13 Districts have been furnished, which indicate that almost 40% of total cases pertained to the properties situated within Kurnool District. It is also stated that Kurnool District alone has 18.54% of Muslim population besides neighbouring other three Districts i.e., Chittoor, Anantapur and YSR Nellore District, at about 11%, 12.26% and 12.55%. (d) Having regard to aforesaid statistics, ultimately the 1st respondent decided to notify A.P. Waqf Tribunal at Kurnool. Therefore, it has been stated that the decision so made was based on tangible material and hence urged for dismissal of the public interest litigation. 6. We have gone through the material placed on record. 7. Section 83(1) of A.P. Waqf Act empowers State Government to constitute as many Tribunals as it may think fit, for the determination of any dispute, question or other matte relating to a waqf or waqf property, eviction of tenant or determination of rights and obligations of the lessor and the lessee of such property and define local limits and jurisdiction of such tribunals. 7 HCJ & CGR, J W.P.(PIL) No.238 of 2021 8. In the present case, the 1st respondent exercising powers under Section 83(1) has initially notified one such Waqf Tribunal at Vijayawada by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 30.03.2016. The said notification specified that aforesaid Waqf Tribunal to have jurisdiction over the entire State of Andhra Pradesh and the same has been brought into effect from 31.03.2016. We understand that though said notification came to be issued, it was not functional on account of non-appointment of the Presiding Officer and other staff. Eventually, the 1st respondent issued yet another notification, vide G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 25.11.2021, notifying the setting up of Waqf Tribunal at Kurnool having jurisdiction over the entire State of Andhra Pradesh. 9. It is not in dispute that the State Government is amply empowered to constitute Waqf Tribunals as it may think fit in furtherance to the functions it is supposed to discharge. Section 83(1) of Waqf Act envisages constitution of any number of institutions, and it necessarily need not be a single Tribunal vesting in it jurisdiction of entire State to cover entire State. 10. Be that as it may, it is nobody’s case that State has no power to constitute Tribunal with definite local limits of jurisdiction. 8 HCJ & CGR, J W.P.(PIL) No.238 of 2021 Only point that has been urged before us is that since the State Government had taken decision to locate all other institutions which are either directly or indirectly connected with the affairs of Muslim Minorities at Vijayawada or Mangalagiri, which are in close proximity to Amaravati, there was no reason for not having even Waqf Tribunal in the same location, rather chosen the seat of place at Kurnool. Merely because the institutions catering to the needs of Muslim Minorities are located in and around Vijayawada and nearer to Amaravati, the said factor alone cannot be a criteria to decide upon seat of place of Waqf Tribunal, it rather depends on multiple factors, therefore, the said argument is completely unfounded. 11. Though the aforesaid contention at first blush may be impressive, but the statistical data with regard to population of minorities, the number of notified Waqf Institutions, Waqf Properties and the number of cases instituted qua the disputes from respective areas would indicate otherwise. In the counter filed by 1st respondent, aforesaid details have been provided exhaustively. When the power has been vested with the Government to take a decision to notify a Waqf Tribunal circumscribing with limits and jurisdiction, it is prerogative of the 9 HCJ & CGR, J W.P.(PIL) No.238 of 2021 executive, based on various factors, including what has been referred to above, to arrive at a holistic decision to have the Tribunal at a particular place. Unless it is shown that such decision is driven by malafides, bias or for any other extraneous reasons and considerations, the executive decisions so made normally should not be interfered with. 12. We are completely satisfied that in the process of notifying the Tribunal, the Government had taken into consideration various aspects of the matter and ultimately felt that it would be more appropriate to have Tribunal notified with seat of place at Kurnool. Therefore, the impugned G.O. notifying Waqf Tribunal at Kurnool having jurisdiction over the State of Andhra Pradesh is legally justified and therefore, we find no merit in the case. 13. Accordingly, this public interest litigation is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J ss