1 APHC010408612026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 22070/2026 Between: 1. SHAIK ALI BASHA, S/O. S. RAFIUDDIN. AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.2/28, AYYALURU VILLAGE, NANDYAL MANDAL AND DISTRICT, A.P. - 518 502. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINORITY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 238. 2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE WAKF BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 4TH 5TH FLOOR, IMDAD GHAR, 0PP. K.R. MARKET, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P. - 520 001. 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE WAKF BOARD 4TH 5TH FLOOR, IMDAD GHAR, 0PP. K.R. MARKET, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P. - 520 001. 4. THE INSPECTOR AUDITOR WAKF, NANDYAL DISTRICT, DISTRICT COLLECTORATE COMPOUND, NOONEPALLY, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, A.P. - 518 502. 2 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toissue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Impugned Notice vide F.No.03/Waqfs/Jamiya/MSJ-IAyyaluru/2024 dated 16.07.2026 issued by the 4th Respondent on the directives of 3rd Respondent vide Memo NO.23/NDL/C/AYL/2024 dt.03.07.2026 for conducting election to the Wakf Institution namely Jamia Masjid situated at Ayyaluru Village, Nandyal Mandal and District and its attached properties to constitute managing committee under Section 18 of the UWMEED Act, 1995 (as amended, 2025) as being illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unwarranted, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction and authority, violation of principles of natural justice, inCommentHighlight violation of provisions of the UWMEED Act, 1995 (as amended, 2025), Andhra Pradesh Wakf Managing Committees (Constitutions, Functions and Duties) Regulations, 2009 and contrary to the Orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.19289 of 2024 dt.01.09.2025 and consequentially direct the respondents more particularly the 2nd respondent to conduct elections to the Wakf Institution namely Jamia Masjid, Ayyaluru Village, Nandyal Mandal and District in accordance with the provisions of UWMEED Act, 1995 (as amended, 2025) and Andhra Pradesh Wakf Managing Committees (Constitutions, Functions and Duties) Regulations, 2009 as directed by this Honble Court in W.P.No. 19289 of 2024 vide Order dt.01.09.2025 IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend the operation of the Impugned Notice vide F.No.03/Waqfs/Jamiya/MSJ- IAyyaluru/2024 dated 16.07.2026 issued by the 4th Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MASALEGAR HIDAYATHULLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3 1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE 2. SHAIK KHAJA BASHA The Court made the following: 4 ORDER: Impugning the notice vide F.No.03/Waqfs/Jamiya/MSJ-IAyyaluru/2024 dated 16.07.2026 issued by the 4th respondent on the directives of the 3rd respondent vide Memo No.23/NDL/C/AYL/2024 dated 03.07.2026, for conducting elections to the Waqf Institution, namely, Jamia Masjid, situated at Ayyaluru Village, Nandyal Mandal and District, and its attached properties, to constitute a Managing Committee under Section 18 of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995 (herein after referred to as „the Act‟), as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The case of the petitioner herein is that the subject Waqf Institution, namely, Jamia Masjid and its attached properties, are situated at Ayyaluru Village of Nandyal Mandal and District, which is a notified Waqf published in the Gazette dated 24.10.1963 at Sl.No.3344. The subject institution is having landed properties in various survey numbers. It is his further case that he filed W.P.No.19289 of 2024 on the file of this Court, questioning the orders of the 3rd respondent, i.e., the Chief Executive Officer, constituting a Managing Committee for a period of one year to look after the day-to-day affairs or till a full-fledged Managing Committee is constituted by the Board to render services of the subject Jamia Masjid. He also filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 seeking to suspend the 5 operation of the impugned order therein dated 30.07.2024. This Court, after hearing the matter, was pleased to grant an interim order staying the operation of the order impugned therein and further directed the 4th respondent to manage the day-to-day affairs of the subject Waqf Institution. Subsequently, the said writ petition was allowed with a direction to the 2nd respondent to appoint a committee to manage the Jamia Masjid and its attached properties in accordance with law under Section 18 of the Act read with Regulations Nos.5, 10 and 11 of the Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Board (Constitution, Functions and Duties) Regulations, 2009. 3. It is his further case that this Court passed a final order directing the 2nd respondent to conduct elections to the subject Waqf Institution. However, to the petitioner‟s surprise, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 21.05.2026 in favour of one DMD Azeem, S/o Ismail, and Sri Shaik Khaja Peer, S/o Shaik Abdul Jaleel, appointing them as joint Mutawallies of the subject Waqf Institution for a period of two years under Section 63 of the Act, despite directions given by this Court to conduct elections. The same has been assailed in W.P.No.15783 of 2026. This Court passed an interim order directing the Chief Executive Officer to file detailed counter explaining as to why they have not conducted election so far, despite the Board having been constituted in the year 2025, and also to explain 6 as to what made him appoint temporary Mutawalli without conducting any election. 4. It is his further case that, pending W.P.No.15783 of 2026, basing on the memo dated 03.07.2026 addressed to the 4th respondent for the purpose of conducting elections to the subject institution and its attached properties, impugned notice dated 16.07.2026 was issued. Assailing the same, the present writ petition is filed. 5. Heard Sri S.M.Subhani, learned counsel representing Sri Masalegar Hidayathulla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shaik Khaja Basha, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. 6. While reiterating the contents of the affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, despite the directions given by this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner vide W.P.No.15783 of 2026, without conducting elections and without issuing notification by the Board, the Chief Executive Officer, contrary to their own regulations, issued the impugned notice directing the Waqf Auditor to prepare the final list of the voters. Unless and until a notification is issued for conducting elections by the Board, the said exercise cannot be commenced. The Chief Executive Officer cannot indirectly do what he cannot do directly by getting it done through the Waqf Auditor, i.e., the 4th 7 respondent. If such memo/impugned notice allowed to subsist, it would not only be illegal but would also affect the rights of the petitioner, including similarly situated persons attached to the subject Waqf Institution. As such, prayed to set aside the same. 7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that until and then the voters list is identified and finalised, no notification can be issued by the Board. Once the notification is issued, the process of conducting elections would commence. Therefore, the contention that the process of identifying the voters cannot be commenced till issuance of notification is untenable. The petitioner herein is, in one way or the other, filing a series of writ petitions without any justification and without there being any cause of action, only to cause inconvenience and hardship to the officials. It is nothing but an abuse of process of law. In fact, a preliminary voters list has been published, to which the petitioner has submitted objections; in fact, this particular objection was never raised. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed with costs at the admission stage itself. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 8 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, in the earlier writ petition, this Court found fault with the Executive Officer in appointing Mutawallis for looking after the day-to-day affairs, as he was incompetent to make such appointment. It is his further contention that when the Chief Executive Officer has no power or is incompetent even to conduct elections by virtue of the Act, 1995 and the Regulations, 2009, giving instructions to the Waqf Auditor is illegal. 10. Regulation 10 of the Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Board (Constitution, Functions and Duties) Regulations, 2009, as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, for quick reference, reads as follows: “10. Notification for Election. (1) The Inspector Auditor Wakf or any other person authorized by the Board any person specifically appointed by the Board shall notify the date, time and place of the election at least 15 days in advance of the polling date. The notification shall indicate the process of election and declaration of results. Provided that the final voters list shall be published on the notice Board of the Wakf/Wakf Institution 30 days in advance of the polling date. Provided further that before publishing the final voter list a draft list thereof shall be published giving 10 days time to add/delete/ rectify the defects if any in the voters list. (2)The Inspector Auditor of the Board shall reject the nomination of a person incurring disqualification. (3)The inspector Auditor of the Board shall after declaration of result forward the list certified by him to the Board for approval of establishment of 9 the managing Committee and after the approval of the Board, such election should become final. Provided that the above exercise is not necessary in the event of unanimous election of the panel and the same shall be certified and forwarded to the Board.” 11. As per the said regulation, the Inspector Auditor has to notify the date, time and place of election at least 15 days in advance of the polling date, which shall indicate the process of election and declaration of results. It further indicates that the final voters list shall be published on the notice board 30 days in advance of the polling date, which means that it should be finalized before the polling date. It also further indicates that, before publishing final voters list, a draft list shall be published, giving 10 days‟ time to rectify the defects, if any, in the voters list. 12. A perusal of the impugned proceedings, it would clearly indicate that, for issuing notification, the authorities have an intention to identify the voters of the subject institution so that they could prepare final list. Until and then the voters list is prepared, in the considered opinion of this Court, they cannot conduct any election by issuing notification. As could be seen from Regulation 10, the Inspector Auditor or any other person authorized by the Board or any person specifically appointed by the Board shall notify the date, time and place of the election. That means, either the Inspector Auditor, Waqf, can independently take up the process of election or any person authorised by the Board can conduct 10 the process. When the Regulation clearly says that the Waqf Auditor has such power, the same cannot be questioned. Admittedly, in the present case, the Inspector Auditor has issued the present impugned notice. When the Regulation stipulates that the Inspector Auditor has the power to undertake the process, the same cannot be questioned. This Court is of the considered opinion that, there would be a point for consideration if the impugned notice was issued by any other person who is not authorized by the Board, but in the present case, it was issued by the Inspector Auditor, who has power as per Regulation 10. 13. As rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel, the petitioner, in one way or other, filing series of writ petitions on one ground or the other. To the knowledge of this Court, even according to the material placed on record, this is the third writ petition filed by the petitioner, namely, W.P.No.19289 of 2024, W.P.No.15783 of 2026 and the present writ petition, it is nothing but an abuse of process of law. In fact, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs even without inviting any counter. However, taking a lenient view, this Court is not inclined to impose costs. It is appropriate to place on record that this Court, in W.P.No.15783 of 2026, had taken a serious note of failure of the respondent authorities to conduct elections. Keeping in view the said observation of this Court, the authorities have taken steps to conduct the elections. 11 Therefore, no grounds were made out by the petitioner warranting the interference of this Court with the impugned notice. 14. 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. _________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 11th August, 2026 Note: Issue CC by 14.08.2026 B/o JLV 12 75 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION No.22070 of 2026 Date: 11th August, 2026 Note: Issue CC by 14.08.2026 B/o JLV