APHC010216732024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 10973/2024 Between: Shaik Nagur Vali ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Mohammed Shafi Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. PILLIX LAW FIRM 3. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE 4. SHAIK KHAJA BASHA The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 for not constituting the managing committee to the notified Waqf institution namely Masjid – E – Mohammaiya published in the A.P. Gazette No.271, dated 28.02.2024 inspite of the petitioners representation being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of the Waqf Act, 1995, and the A.P. Waqfs Managing Committee (Constitutions, Functions and Duties) Regulations, 2009 and consequentially direct the respondents No.2 and 3 to consider the representation dated 18.04.2024 as well direcxt the respondent No.4 to register the FIR against respondent No.5 on basis of complaint lodged by the respondent No.3 and to take enquiry and appropriate action and pass…” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities shall take steps for the appointment of the Managing Committee for Masjid-E-Mohammadiya, which was notified on 28.04.2024. The petitioner also submitted a representation dated 18.04.2024 requesting consideration for the appointment of the Managing Committee, but as of today, the respondents have neither considered the plea of the petitioner nor provided any response. Hence, the present writ petition. 3 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that since the petitioner is seeking the appointment of a Managing Committee for the Masjid-E- Mohammadiya institution, which is a notified institution, the authorities must follow due procedure as contemplated by law. He further submits that the consideration of the representation should be done by the respondents in accordance with the law. 5. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent submits that since the petitioner is seeking to register an FIR against the 5th respondent, pursuant to the report submitted by the 3rd respondent to the 4th respondent, such a request cannot be allowed without inviting a counter-affidavit from the 5th respondent. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner intends to file a proper report before the concerned court for appropriate action against the 5th respondent. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned counsel for the 5th respondent, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is disposed of by directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner for the appointment of the Managing Committee in respect 4 of the subject institution, in accordance with law, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the petitioner is at liberty to proceed with the registration of any kind of complaint or legal action against the 5th respondent. 8. With the above observations, the present Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 24.02.2025 LSP 5 164 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.10973 of 2024 24.02.2025 LSP