Jamia Mosque Committee vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Present intra-Court appeal assails the interlocutory order, dated 25.06.2026, in I.A.No.1 of 2026 in W.P.No.16785 of 2026, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the same.

The appellant/writ petitioner instituted writ petition challenging proceedings in F.No.01/CTR/C/Karyetinagaram/2026, dated 08.5.2026, issued by 2^nd respondent appointing an interim committee consisting of respondents 8 to 16 for managing the affairs of Jamia Mosque, Karvetinagaram, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995, and the Rules made thereunder. Appellant claims that initially his father was maintaining the affairs of mosque for the past 20 years and after his death, he has been maintaining the same, that without notice to him, by impugned proceedings, he has been divested of maintaining the affairs of subject mosque. Insofar as notice issued under Section 72 of the Waqf Act, alleging non-maintenance of financial records, though a reply was submitted, without passing any further order, 2^nd respondent resorted to impugned action. In that background, petitioner sought suspension of impugned proceedings pending the writ petition.

Learned Standing Counsel for Waqf Board, however, on instructions, stated that neither petitioner’s father nor petitioner was ever appointed as Muthawalli, but they are proclaiming to be so, since started mismanaging the affairs, as an interim measure, 2^nd respondent constituted a committee, and therefore, sought further time to file detailed counter-affidavit.

The learned Single Judge, considering the respective stands pleaded, having noticed that the appellant/writ petitioner could not place on record any material to show that he was appointed as Muthawalli nor the committee of members as pleaded by petitioner, which was managing the affairs was constituted and duly recognised by Waqf Board, refused to grant any interim relief.

Heard Ms. P.Saraswathi, learned counsel for appellant and Mr.Shaik Khaja Pasha, learned Standing Counsel for Waqf Board, appearing for respondents 2 to 5.

Learned counsel for appellant tried to persuade this Court that the order of the learned Single Judge is unsustainable and that there is ample material on record to demonstrate prima facie case and the balance of convenience in his favour for grant of interim relief.

Learned Standing Counsel for Waqf Board appearing for respondents 2 to 5, on the other hand, stated that they have already filed detailed counter-affidavit in the writ petition and that the matter is scheduled to be listed on 10.09.2026. Further, on instructions, he also stated that as of now the subject institution is being managed by the interim committee, since the enquiry against appellant/writ petitioner is pending before the enquiry officer and once the enquiry officer’s report is received, appropriate orders would be passed by the Waqf Board.

Considering aforesaid submissions, given the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that as the very main writ petition is pending, any of our observations would prejudice the parties, therefore, we dispose of present writ appeal, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, requesting the learned Single Judge to decide the main writ petition itself expeditiously and till such time, we direct the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the management of affairs of the subject institution.

Accordingly, writ appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.