Yusuf Qureshi vs M.A. Rafat and Others

M.N. Rao, J.—The petitioner herein and certain other persons were appointed as members of the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board (for short "the Wakf Board") by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Ms. No. 74 Minorities Welfare (Wakf-I) Department, dated 26-8-1994 read with the errata issued on 30-8-1994 in G.O.Ms. No. 75. The members of the Wakf-Board elected the petitioner herein as the Chairman under sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Wakf Act. They assumed charge with effect from 31-8-1994. While so, two writ petitions - W.P. Nos. 16111 and 16122 of 1994 - were filed in this Court challenging their appointments on several grounds. As no interim stay was granted in the writ petitions, they functioned as such till 10-4-1995 when a learned single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petitioner, in consequence of which, a Special Officer - respondent No. 1 herein - was appointed. who assumed charge, it appears, on that very day itself. Writ Appeal Nos. 401 and 1087 of 1995 were filed by the petitioner herein and the other affected members of the Wakf Board, which were allowed by a common judgment after an elaborate hearing by a Division Bench of this Court, of which, one of us, M. N. Rao, J., was a member, on 17-1-1996, the operative portion of which is in the following terms :

"For these reasons, upholding the G.Os., impugned in the two writ petitions, we allow Writ Appeal Nos. 401 and 1087 of 1995 setting aside the common judgment of the learned Judge in W.P. Nos. 16111 and 16122 of 1994 and dismiss the writ petitioners, in consequence of which, all the appellants in W.A. Nos. 401 and 1087 of 1995 will be entitled to function as members of the Wakf Board as per the above two H.Os. No. costs."

When the judgment was delivered in the open Court, the counsel for the wakf Board, the counsel for the appellants and the learned government pleader were all present.

Alleging that the respondents herein, apart from wilfully disobeying the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court also caused harassment and illegal arrest of the petitioner herein in order to prevent him functioning as the Chairman of the Wakf when he asserted his right to function as such, this contempt case was filed. Respondent No. 1, at the relevant time, was the Special Officer of the Wakf Board and the second respondent is the Secretary of the Wakf Board. Respondents 3 to 9 are police officers, who, it is alleged, had connived with respondents 1 and 2 in preventing the petitioner from discharging his functions and also in causing his illegal arrest.

In the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, it is averred that the counsel for the petitioner by letter dated 17-1-1996 informed respondents 1 and 2 about the judgment of this Court and the petitioner resumed charge as the Chairman of the Wakf Board on 18-7-1996 by signing the registers. He also released an official circular No. 1/peshi/Chairman/96 declaring 18-1-1996 as public holiday because of the sudden demise of Sri N. T. Rama Rao, the former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh. He participated on 18-1-1996 in Urs-e-Sharif at Jahangir Peera Darga-e-Hazrat near Shadnagar in his capacity as the Chairman of the Wakf Board, The Government of Andhra Pradesh declared 19-1-1996 as a holiday because of the death of Sri N. T. Rama Rao but the Urs celebrations continued in which the petitioner had participated. On 20-1-1996, when the petitioner reached the office of the Wakf Board, he was surprised to find some policemen posted there and upon enquiry, he learnt that the fifth respondent, Sri Sharfuddin, Circle Inspector Abids Police Station, posted them there. The petitioner''s room (the Chairman''s room) in the office was locked and the keys were taken away by the second respondent. When questioned by the petitioner, the second respondent had given evasive replies. The police and the second respondent prevented the petitioner from entering into the office when he tried to open the lock. He waited till 3.00 p.m., on that day but the first respondent did not turn up. Thereafter, he went to the police station at Abids and lodged a complaint with the Circle Inspector regarding the illegal action of the first respondent herein - the Special Officer of the Wakf Board. 21-1-1996 was a holiday being Sunday. On the next day i.e., 22-1-1996, when the petitioner reached the Wakf Board Office, he still found the Chairman''s room locked. When he was waiting at the room of the Secretary, the second respondent, the Inspector of Police, the fifth respondent, came there around 1.30 p.m., and asked him to see the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Sri Mahender Reddy, the fourth respondent. When he met the fourth respondent, the latter after going through the judgment of this Court in W.A. Nos. 401 and 1087 of 1995, assured him that appropriate steps would be taken. Even on that day, he could not enter the office because he was prevented by the police. On 23-1-1996, once again the petitioner went to the Wakf Board office at 10.00 a.m., but he was again prevented by the police. At 12 noon, he could secure a certified copy of the judgment of this Court in the above writ appeals. He handed over a copy of the same to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, the fourth respondent, who acknowledged the same but the Circle Inspector, the fifth respondent, refused to receive it. At 2.30 p.m., on 23-1-1996, the second respondent while acknowledging the receipt of a copy of the judgment informed the petitioner that the key of the room was with the first respondent but as the latter did not turn up the petitioner having waited there till 4.30 p.m., went home. As the position continued to be the same even on 24-1-1996 when the petitioner went to the office at 10.00 a.m., he got issued a legal notice to the Deputy Commissioner of police, the fourth respondent, as well as the Secretary, Wakf Board, the second respondent herein, which was received by the former at 12 noon and the latter at 1.25 p.m. On 24-1-1996 itself, the petitioner was asked to see the Commissioner of Police, the third respondent, at the Police Control Room and accordingly the petitioner met him at 2.30 p.m. When the petitioner informed the third respondent about the judgment of this Court by showing a copy and producing the photographs evidencing his assumption of office as Chairman, he was told that the needful would be done and that he should wait for one more day. He then went back to the office of the Wakf Board and waited there. In the meanwhile; another Writ petition - No. 830 of 1996 - was filed by a third party, in which a Division Bench of this Court passed an interim order at 4.15 p.m., in W.P.M.P. No. 989 of 1996 directing, inter alia, that if the appellants in W.A. Nos. 401 and 1087 of 1995 i.e., the petitioner and other members of the Wakf Board had resumed the office, they would continue to function.

It is the case of the petitioner that as he already resumed the office, he was entitled to continue as the Chairman of the Wakf Board and when he reached the Wakf Board Office on 25-1-1996 at 12.30 p.m., he again found his room locked. When he questioned respondents 6 to 9 - the Sub-Inspectors of Police and Head Constable - they informed him that they were acting under the instructions of the Commissioner of Police, the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the Inspector of Police - respondents 3 to 5. When he tried to enter the office, he was arrested on charges of trespass u/s 488, I.P.C. by respondents 6 to 9 between 1.15 and 1.30 p.m., taken to the Abids police station where he was kept in illegal custody till 7.00 p.m., and released.

Respondents 1 to 5 filed counter-affidavits and the other respondents - Nos. 6 to 9 - have not filed any counter-affidavit.

The Commissioner of Police, the third respondent, has taken the stand that when he was shown a copy of the judgment and other documents by the petitioner who sought police help, he assured that necessary action would be taken as per law. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, the fourth respondent, admitted that the petitioner met him and requested for help and he informed him that he would look into the matter. The Inspector of Police, the fifth respondent, in an elaborate counter, has stated that on 18-1-1996, the second respondent, Secretary of the Wakf Board, came to the police station and lodged a typewritten complaint alleging that the petitioner herein along with Mr. Hadi Ali, Mr. Azam Pasha Quadri, Mr. Ghousiddin and Rasheed Patel (members of the Wakf Board) trespassed into the chambers of the Special Officer and the petitioner occupied the chair of the Special Officer unauthorised and started summoning the staff and, therefore, he requested for police protection. On 20-1-1996, a telephone message was received by him from the Special Officer of the Wakf Board, respondent No. 1 herein, requesting for police protection to safeguard the Government property as it was apprehended that the petitioner and his men were likely to create law and order problems. He, therefore, deputed respondents 8 and 9, the Sub-Inspector and the Head Constable, along with other police constables. When he went to the Wakf Board office, he found the petitioner and the other three persons and when he enquired the second respondent, the Secretary of the Wakf Board, the latter informed that no orders from the Government were received regarding the constitution of the Wakf Board nor was there any order issued from the Court. The Circle Inspector denied the allegation that he prevented the petitioner from entering the office. On 25-1-1996 at 12.15 p.m., a letter was received at the police station from the first respondent stating :

"Pursuant to the orders cited in W.P. No. 830 of 1996 dated 24-1-1996, I hereby inform you and hereby declare that I never handed over charge either to Sri Yusuf Qureshi or to anybody else, either on 10-1-1996 or on any other date. I, therefore, request that Sri Yusuf Qureshi and his associates may not be allowed into the premises of the Wakf Board, as they are likely to create law and order problem. I request, that necessary police protection may please be provided to the Special Officer and the employees of the Wakf Board, from the followers of Sri Yusuf Qureshi."

A specific complaint also was lodged at 1.15 p.m., on 25-1-1996 by the second respondent informing, him that the petitioner and others trespassed into the premises of the Wakf Board, created a big scene by shouting slogans and there is "every possibility of these elements attacking the Wakf Board and cause damage to the Government property and its employees". The second respondent, therefore, requested the police to arrest the petitioner and the other persons and obtain personal bonds from then so that they may not create any problems of law and order. The Inspector of Police asserts that the petitioner and the followers got themselves arrested and raised slogans and that action was taken to avoid law and order problem.

The stand taken by the first respondent, the Special Officer of the Wakf Board, in his counter affidavit is that he was not a party to the writ appeals. He did not attend the office on 18-1-1996 and 19-1-1996 as they were holidays and that the resumption of office as Chairman of the Wakf Board must be in accordance with the statutory provisions contained in Article 78 of the Andhra Pradesh Finance code and therefore, it could not be said that the petitioner had resumed office. He alleges that the petitioner and the three other members of the Wakf Board, accompanied by a large number of followers, took the law into their hands, gate-crashed into the office and when asked by the Secretary to leave the premises, they declined to do so. It is also his case that on private affairs, he was on casual leave on 20th and 22nd January, 1996 and on 23-1-1996 and 24-1-1996, he attended meetings in the Secretariat and, therefore did not attend the office. The order of this Court in W.A. Nos. 401 and 1087 of 1995 was not shown to him. The police complaint was given only with a view to protecting the properties of the Wakf Board.

The second respondent, the Secretary of the Wakf Board, in his counter-affidavit alleges that 18-1-1996 and 19-1-1996 being holidays, he had not gone to the office but he received a phone call from the watchman that the petitioner herein accompanied by a large number of persons gate-crashed into the office He, therefore, rushed to the office and found the petitioner sitting in his chair and when questioned, they started arguing with him and at that moment, some one had taken a photograph. He disputed the authenticity of the circular issued by the petitioner in his capacity as the Chairman of the Wakf Board on 18-1-1996 and asserted that till 2.30 p.m., on 23-1-1996, he was not shown the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. He sought police help as the petitioner and his associates gathered in the office in large numbers.

After hearing the counsel for both sides and going through the affidavit and counter-affidavits, we are of the clear view that respondents 1 and 2 have committed civil contempt as defined in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and, therefore, they are liable for punishment u/s 12(1) of the Act. Before the appointment of the members of the Wakf Board by G.O.Ms. Nos. 74 dated 26-8-1994 and G.O.Ms. No. 75 dated 30-8-1994, the affairs of the Wakf Board were being managed by the Special Officer of the Wakf Board, the first respondent herein. After the members took charge of the Wakf Board in pursuance of the aforesaid G.Os. the post of Special Officer was abolished. As there were no orders of stay granted in the two writ petitions - W.P. Nos. 16111 and 16122 of 1994 - the members of the Wakf Board continued to be in charge of the affairs of the Wakf Board. It is only on 10-4-1995, when the aforesaid two writ petitions were allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court that the Special Officer was again appointed terminating the appointments of the petitioner and others as members of the Wakf Board. When the judgment in the writ appeals was delivered on 17-1-1996, the counsel for the Wakf Board was physically present in the Court. It is not, therefore, open to respondents 1 and 2 to pretend that they were not aware of the judgment of this Court and the specific orders contained therein.

The effect of the judgment of this Court in the two writ appeals - Nos. 401 and 1087 of 1995 - was that the petitioner and, the other members will be "entitled to function" as members of the Wakf Board as per the two G.Os., by which they were appointed. Their functioning as the Chairman and members of the Wakf Board was not dependant upon any consequential formal orders to be passed by the Government; the judgment of the Division Bench in the two writ appeals - W.A. Nos. 401 and 1087 of 1995 - did not partake of the character of an order appointing the petitioner and the other three persons as members of the Wakf Board afresh but it only removed the eclipse which they suffered by virtue of the judgment in the two writ petitions - W.P. Nos. 1611 and 16122 of 1994. Even assuming that there was any such formality, as the Government was a party to the two writ appeals and as the Government pleader was present in the Court when the judgment was delivered, immediate steps ought to have been taken to issue the necessary orders in this regard. What is surprising is that the second respondent, Secretary of the Wakf Board, was present when the petitioner herein resumed the office. The photographs filed before us show the second respondent standing by the side of the petitioner. The plea now taken that there was an argument and suddenly somebody had taken a photograph appears to be a clear afterthought. The photographs also show that in the office of the Wakf Board, the petitioner was garlanded by the other members and his followers. Evidence also is placed before us that on 18-1-1996, the petitioner, in his capacity as the Chairman of the Wakf Board, declared 18-1-1996 as a holiday.

What is more distressing is that the counter affidavits filed by respondents 1 and 2 do not advert to any of their attempts to contact either the counsel for the Wakf Board or the Government pleader in order to ascertain the correct position. We find it difficult to erase the impression from our minds, in the particular circumstances of the case, that respondents 1 and 2 had deliberately resorted to an obstacle course creating hurdles in the way of the petitioner from functioning as the Chairman of the Wakf Board obviously till such time that another party had approached this Court to question the correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench and obtain interim orders. What is fairly discernible is that both respondents 1 and 2 were acting as conduits to some other interested groups or individuals determined not to give effect to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. Taking casual leave by the first respondent on 20-1-1996 and 22-1-1996 (21-1-1996 is Sunday) and not going to the Wakf Board office on 23-1-1996 and 24-1-1996 on the plea that he was attending meetings in the Secretariat are all contrived situations to enable other parties to approach this Court and obtain orders. When the first respondent had received a telephonic message from the second respondent that there was some problem at the office of the Wakf Board, it was his responsibility, as a Special Officer, to rush to the place. For reasons self evident, he avoided going to the office. No responsible person entrusted with the affairs of the Wakf Board as Special Officer, in the present fact situation, would conduct himself in such a blame-worthy manner. The Wakf Board office is not far away from the Secretariat and to pretend that he had no time to got to the Wakf Board''s office since he was busy attending meeting with the Secretary to the Government in the Secretariat is suggestive of abdication of responsibility on his part. The second respondent, even after seeing the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the receipt of which he acknowledged, thought it fit to seek police protection to prevent the petitioner from functioning as the Chairman of the Wakf Board. Respondents 1 and 2, thus, acted in concert and deliberately disobeyed the orders of this Court. What is shocking is that after a copy of the judgment was seen by the second respondent, the petitioner was arrested and kept in police lock-up for several hours. If there is any iota of truth in the allegation that the petitioner and his supporters had caused law and order problems, nothing prevented the police officials from prosecuting them. It is admitted in the Course of the hearing that no F.I.R. was lodged against petitioner or his followers and no attempt, whatever, was made to prosecute them.

As regards the role of respondents 3 to 9, we are inclined to take the view that they acted only on complaints from the first and second respondents that the petitioner was causing law and order problems. Two views are possible as to the course of action resorted to by the police officers. They should have acted more cautiously by ascertaining the legal position before preventing the petitioner from functioning as the Chairman of the Wakf Board and causing his arrest. But this lapse, we find it very difficult to equate with wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court in collusion with respondents 1 and 2. We, therefore, dismiss the contempt case against respondents 3 to 9.

As regards respondents 1 and 2, they cannot escape from the consequences of their actions. Not only wilfully and deliberately they disobeyed the orders of this Court, but did everything in their power to prevent the petitioner from functioning as the Chairman of the Wakf Board, which he was lawfully entitled to by virtue of the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 401 and 1087 of 1995.

For these reasons, we convict respondents 1 and 2 under S. 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and sentence each of them to a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousands only) in default each of them is sentenced to suffer S.I. for one month. Time for payment of the fine amount - 4 weeks.

The contempt case is accordingly allowed with costs against respondents 1 and 2 and dismissed as against the other respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay the costs jointly and severally. Advocate''s fees Rs. 2,000/-.

Order accordingly