APHC010311772011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 16140/2011 Between: Mr.shaik Nazeer @ Shaik Nazeer Ahmed,guntur District ...PETITIONER AND Ap State Wakf Board 2 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K UDAYA SRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SHAFATH AHMED KHAN SC-WAKF BOARD 2. M A K MUKHEED 3. S ARIFULLAH (SC FOR AP WAQF BOARD) The Court made the following: The Court made the following: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs: “(i) to declare the proceedings F.No.B3/24/GNT/2006/Z-VII dated 31.05.2011 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Board, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995; (ii) declare the proceedings of 27th Meeting of the Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Board, Hyderabad with reference to Item No.20 and Resolution No.918/2011 dated 7.5.2011 as illegal and arbitrary and (iii) consequently set aside the said proceedings” 2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner was appointed as Mutawalli under Section 63 of the Waqf Act in the year 2006 for a period of one year and the said proceedings are challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the unofficial respondent is still continuing as Mutawalli. He was removed from the said post without following due procedure as contemplated. Hence the writ petition. 3. The Learned Standing Counsel asserts that after the petitioner was removed as Mutawalli, the first respondent took direct control of the institution, and a new Mutawalli was appointed. He further contends that since the petitioner’s appointment was made under Section 63 of the Waqf Act for a specific term, even if the petitioner succeeds in the pending writ petition, the tenure of the unofficial respondent would have already ended, therefore, no further orders are needed to be passed in this writ petition and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 4. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Waqf Board, no further orders are needed to be passed in this writ petition. 5. Accordingly, Writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. 6. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand dismissed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date:19.02.2025 SP THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 16140/2011 Date:19.02.2025 W SP