Syed Mohd Abdul Qadeer vs The State Of Telangana & Ors.

The petitioner, has filed the above Public Interest Litigation (PIL) with the following prayer:

The Registry has returned the above W.P.(PIL)(SR) on 10.07.2026 with the following objection:

The learned counsel for the petitioner represented the above W.P.(PIL)(SR) on 13.07.2026 with the following endorsement:

The Registry returned the above WP(PIL)(SR) on 17.07.2026, with the following objection:

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has re-presented the above WP(PIL)(SR) on 18.07.2026 with the following endorsement:

The matter has been placed before this Court for orders on maintainability.

We have heard Sri M/s. M.S.Balasubramanim, learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the documents placed on record and have considered the averments made.

The petitioner describes himself as a concerned citizen, Editor-in-Chief of a newspaper and a taxpayer and has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to constitute the Telangana State Waqf Board (TSWB) strictly in accordance with Section 14 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (for short ‘1995 Act’), as substituted by the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (for short ‘the Amendment Act’).

The petitioner’s grievance is that notwithstanding the coming into force of the Amendment Act, the State Government has not constituted/reconstituted the TSWB in conformity with the amended statutory framework. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.28287 of 2025 questioning the appointment of certain members of the Board under the statutory framework then in force, which is stated to be pending and tagged with connected matters concerning the constitution and functioning of the Board.

In the above circumstances, the petitioner initially presented the present PIL as W.P.(PIL)(SR) No.13799 of 2026. When the matter was placed before this Court on 06.05.2026, the office objection that the petitioner had approached the Court without first making a representation to the concerned authorities was found to be justified, and he was permitted to submit representations and present the matter afresh. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted representations dated 18.05.2026 to the Chief Secretary, with copies marked to the concerned authorities. The Law Department, Government of Telangana, by U.O. Note No.3836233/161/TLSP/ G/2026, dated 27-05-2026, transferred the representation to the Minorities Welfare Department for necessary action, being the department administratively concerned with the subject matter.

Subsequently, the registry has raised the aforesaid objections on 10.07.2026 and 17.07.2026 and thereafter the matter was accordingly placed before this Court.

At this juncture, it is apposite to take note of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner hereunder:

The principal relief sought by the petitioner is a direction to the respondents to constitute the TSWB in accordance with Section 14 of the 1995 Act, as substituted by the Amendment Act. The validity of the Amendment Act is, however, presently under consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No.269 of 2025 and batch. The petitioner himself acknowledges the pendency of such proceedings. It is true that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not stayed the operation of the Amendment Act in its entirety. At the same time, by its order dated 15.09.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued specific interim directions concerning, inter alia, the composition of the Board under Section 14 of the amended Act, the same is extracted hereunder:

In view of the above, any direction issued by this Court requiring constitution of the TSWB strictly in terms of the substituted Section 14 would necessarily operate within a statutory framework whose Constitutional validity is presently under consideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No.269 of 2025 and batch and in respect of which interim directions have already been issued. Judicial discipline and institutional comity require this Court to exercise restraint and avoid issuing directions which may overlap with or pre-empt the consideration pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Further, the relief sought by the petitioner is thus not independent of the challenge to the Amendment Act; it is founded entirely upon the substituted Section 14. The question whether and to what extent the amended statutory scheme is to be implemented is consequently intertwined with the proceedings pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No.269 of 2025 and batch. Thus, this Court is not inclined to issue a mandamus compelling the State Government to constitute the Board under the amended provision at this stage.

Moreover, pursuant to the order dated 06.05.2026 passed in the earlier proceedings, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 18.05.2026 to the Chief Secretary. The Law Department, by U.O. Note No.3836233/161/TLSP/G/2026 dated 27.05.2026, transferred the representation to the Minorities Welfare Department for necessary action. The record therefore discloses that the representation had entered the administrative process and had been forwarded to the department concerned for consideration. However, the petitioner did not await the outcome of the representation or allow reasonable time for the competent department to consider and take a decision thereon. Instead, the present petition was pursued within a short period thereafter. The Registry specifically called upon the petitioner to disclose the result/status of the representation. The response of the learned counsel that the objection was not acceptable did not address the substance of the objection or what action, if any, had been taken.

It is also to be noted that a writ of mandamus ordinarily presupposes a subsisting statutory or public duty and a corresponding failure to discharge such duty. In the present case, the petitioner approached the Court while his own representation was still pending consideration before the department administratively concerned with the subject. The grievance of inaction was brought before this Court before the administrative process had run its course. Therefore, the petition is consequently premature.

We are also conscious of the fact that the petitioner has already instituted W.P.No.28287 of 2025 questioning the appointment of certain members of the TSWB under the statutory framework then prevailing. The said writ petition is stated to be pending along with other connected matters concerning the constitution and functioning of the Board. The present petition arises from the subsequent amendment to the same statutory framework and seeks constitution of the very same Board under the substituted Section 14. We are of the considered opinion that the pendency of the earlier writ petition(s) presents a clear and sufficient impediment to entertain the present proceeding in the form of a PIL.

It is also to be noted that mere assertion that the petitioner has no personal or private interest cannot, by itself, be determinative. The Court is required to examine the substance of the proceedings and the circumstances in which the jurisdiction of the Court is invoked. In Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary^{11.(1992) 4 SCC 305}, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasised the need for the Court to satisfy itself that the jurisdiction of the Court is invoked bona fide and in genuine public interest. In the present case, as noted hereinabove, the pendency of his earlier writ petition(s) concerning the constitution of the TSWB is a relevant circumstance which militates against entertaining the present PIL.

For the forgoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the present WP(PIL) cannot be entertained at this stage. The objections raised by the Registry are accordingly sustained, as the subject matter of the petition, namely, the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, is presently under consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No.269 of 2025 and batch, and this Court cannot issue any direction which may overlap with or pre-empt such adjudication. Therefore, the present petition does not satisfy the requirements for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court in a genuine public interest.

In view of the above, the office objection raised by the Registry as to the maintainability of WP(PIL)(SR) is upheld. The petition is not maintainable in its present form and accordingly, the registration of the same is refused.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. No costs.