SK. LAL AHMED, CHITTOOR DIST & ANOTHER v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AP STATE WAKF BOARD, HYD & 2 OT
WP/34352/2012 · 2025-02-20
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 6028 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 6028 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010052812012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 34352/2012 Between: Sk. Lal Ahmed, Chittoor Dist & Another and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Chief Executive Officer Ap State Wakf Board Hyd 2 Ot and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
2. MOHD HABEEBUR RAHMAN The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO.34352 OF 2012 ORDER:
The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking following relief:
“.. to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order in F.No.26/K/CTR/2012/ZIV dt.10.10.2012 issued by the 1st respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, contrary to the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, besides being contrary to the objects and provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995 and consequently set a side the same and pass such other order or orders…”
2. Head learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The case of the petitioner herein is that the 1st respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 10.10.2012 for constitution of a managing committee in respect of respondent No.3 for a period of two (02) years. Since, the committee itself is appointed for a period of two (02) years, the period of committee came to an end in the year 2014. Therefore, the cause in the present writ petition does not survive for further adjudication and the matter becomes infructuous.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________________________
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J
Dated:20.02.2025 BSP
177
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO.34352 OF 2012
Dated:20.02.2025 BSP