- (1.) This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings of the 1st respondent-A.P. Wakf Board, dated 7-5-2005, whereunder, the District Wakf Committee for Krishna District was dissolved with immediate effect and a new committee consisting of 14 members as specified thereunder has been constituted.
(2.) The writ petitioner is the President of the District Wakf Committee for Krishna District, which was constituted - vide proceedings of the Executive Officer of A.P. State Wakf Board dated 23-3-2004 for a period of two years i.e., upto 22-2-2006. While so, the 1st respondent issued a notice dated 17-3-2005 calling upon the writ petitioner to show-cause as to why he should not be removed from the office of the president of the District Wakf Committee of Krishna District alleging that he committed several irregularities in discharging his functions. The writ petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 11-5-2005 explaining all the allegations made in the show-cause notice. However, the impugned order dated 7-5-2005 was passed dissolving the District Committee and reconstituting a fresh committee. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition contending inter alia, that the impugned order which was passed without recording any reasons to dissolve the District Committee, is in violation of the principles of natural justice, and on that ground alone it is liable to be set-aside. It is further contended that all the allegations made in the show-cause notice were already considered and discussed by the Committee and having been satisfied that the said allegations were unfounded, the term was earlier extended for another period of two years from 23-7-2004. Hence, it is not permissible to reopen the issue and to pass the impugned proceedings on the basis of the very same allegations, which were found to be baseless.
(3.) In spite of the Rule Nisi ordered long back on 10-5-2005, the 1st respondent - Wakf Board, failed to file its counter- affidavit, rebutting the allegations made by the petitioner nor the records were made available to this Court. However, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Wakf Board raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition contending that since an alternative remedy of appeal is available under the Statute, without exhausting the said alternative remedy, the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition.;