AKHTAR AHMED Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD
Click here to view full judgement.
Gopalakrishnan Nair, J. -
(1.) The petitioner asks for a Writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 10-7-1962 passed by the First respondent-Government removing film from membership or the Andhra Pradesh wakf Board. The main ground on which this petition is based is that the first respondent which passed the Impugned order under Section 18(1)(b) of the Muslim wakfs Act, acted unreasonably, arbitration are Without bona fides. The petitioner was a member of the Wakf Board which was constituted by G. O. Ms. No. 457, Home , (Endowment IV) dated 4-3-1961, THIS board consisted of 11 members. They elected one of them, Sri Latiff, as chairman.
(2.) At a meeting of the Board held on 29-3-1962 it was resolved that the budget prepared by the finance Committee should be brought up for consideration of the Board along with the review thereof by the Accounts under. On 19-4-1962, however, the Chairman caused it to He informed to the members of the Board including the petitioner that he proposed to invite the members of the finance Committee also to be present at the meeting at which the Board was to consider the budget and the report of The Accounts Officer. When the Chairmans proposal was circulated to the petitioner, he noted on it to the following effect; "I fail to understand why the Chairman insists on making the decisions of the Board ineffective." The Chairman took umbrage at this and promptly called upon the petitioner to withdraw the remarks. This, the petitioner did not do. It appears that the Chairman took me matter to the Government. On 5-6-1962, the Deputy Secretary in the Home Department caused a notice to be served on the petitioner asking him to submit his explanation regarding his discourteous conduct towards the chairmen and also calling upon him to show cause why action should not be taken against him under section 18 of me Wakfs Act. The petitioner desired to refer to some recurs of the Board before submitting his explanation. This was permitted. On 26-6-1962, the petitioner submitted his explanation to the Government, and on 10-7-1962 the impugned order was passed removing him from membership of the Board. This order is assailed by the petitioner as one passed without jurisdiction illegally and arbitrarily. According to him, this is not a valid order in the eye of law.
(3.) The respondents resist this petition on the ground that the removal of the petitioner from membership of the Board was proper and justified on He facts and circumstances of the case. The Assistant Secretary, Home Department, in his counter-affidavit, has set out in elaborate detail several matters of administration of the Board, particularly certain financial aspects, in an attempt to make out that the petitioners removal was proper. He has also alleged that the act of discourtesy on the part of we petitioner towards the elected Chairman of the Board was considered by the Government to be prejudicial to the interests of the Wakfs within the meaning of Section 18 (1)(b) or the Wakfs Act. He has further staled that the impugned order was based on the subjective satisfaction of the Government and is therefore not amenable to Judicial review, me 2nd respondent who is the Secretary of the Board and the third respondent who was appointed in the place of the petitioner have taken a stand more or less similar to mat of the 1st respondent.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.