Judgment:
ORDER
1. When the Review Petition came up, the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Mr. Mirza Munawwar AH Baig, Mr. S. Satyanarayana Prasad, who filed the Writ Appeal by seeking leave of the Court and also the learned Government Pleader for Education, have represented that the Writ Petition itself can be heard and disposed of on merits. As such, we have taken up the Writ Petition itself.
2. This is a glaring case of abuse of process of this Court by invoking Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The sole complaint is against two persons, namely, Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin Quadri and Dr. Syed Tajuddin Quadri, who are the sons of Late Syed Shah Qadar Mohiuddin Quadri Saheb. The said Syed Shah Qader Mohiuddin Quadri Saheb was the founder of the institution in question, namely, A.K.M. Oriental College at Kachiguda, Hyderabad. The same was founded in the year 1966 and was endowed and it became a Wakf property governed by the provisions of Wakf Act, 1954. The said founder and endower died during the year 1967 leaving behind him two sons, namely, Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin Quadri and Dr. Syed Tajuddin Quadri who constitute the management. It is the allegation of the Writ Petitioner who is the Principal, employed by the said management, that there was gross mismanagement on the part of the said management comprising the said two individuals, namely, Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin Quadri and Dr. Syed Tajuddin Quadri. It is alleged that they had not only mismanaged the institution, but had also harassed the staff, both teaching and non-teaching, including the Writ Petitioner, that they did not take care of basic amenities, like electricity, water and that the Premises where the Educational Institution is being run is quite unsafe, particularly, for lady students coming for evening session. It is also his complaint that his salary even though due and payable to him was unjustly withheld particularly for the period from 1-9-1991 onwards. Having made such an accusation of very serious nature, including that of misappropriation, the Writ Petitioner had wilfully and deliberately not impleaded the above two persons as parties to the Writ Petition, obviously for getting adjudication and obtaining orders condemning them behind their back. Such an attitude of a party approaching this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India should be highly deprecated and that can be the sole ground for dismissal of the Writ Petition for non-joinder of necessary parties. When the party seeks an equitable relief from this Court and particularly, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the said party should come with clean hands. We have to say emphatically that the Writ Petitioner has not approached this Court with lean hands. Knowing fully well that even though the above affected persons were necessary parties, he had not made them parties deliberately and wilfully. This Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of non-joinder of necessary parlies.
3. That apart, even on merits, there is absolutely no cause for ventilating grievance of the Writ Petitioner in the Writ Petition in the manner it is framed. If there is any mismanagement, there is ample power in the Statutory Authorities, be it under the A.P. Education Act or Wakf Act, 1954 to enquire into the matter and take appropriate action. It is not the case of the Writ Petitioner that there is negligence on the part of the said Authorities in concluding the disciplinary proceedings which have been initiated against the above two persons constituting the management.
4. In fact, it is the case of the Writ Petitioner that pursuant to the complaint made, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and he had conducted enquiry and submitted Enquiry Report and because of the orders passed by this Court staying the said proceedings, further action is kept in abeyance. As such, the allegation with regard to the mismanagement cannot be the subject-matter in these proceedings.
5. From the two reliefs which are sought for in this Writ Petition, namely, (1) to shift the Educational Institution from the present premises at Kachiguda and (2) to pay the salaries for the period from 1-9-1991 onwards to the petitioner, it has to be held that in so far as the first relief is concerned, the Writ Petitioner is nobody and has got absolutely no locus standi to seek for the shifting of the Educational Institution to some other premises. It is none of the concern of the Writ petitioner to seek for such a shifting. He is after all, a Principal under the management and it is for the management to look into such bigger aspects. Further, should the statutory Authorities feel that the management has failed to take appropriate care with regard to the premises in which the Educational Institution is being run, then it is for that Statutory authority to look into the matter and take appropriate action. The Writ Petitioner cannot claim to be more loyal than the King. In fact, he has over stepped his authority in seeking shifting of the Educational Institution to some other premises and it is an act of indiscipline on his part to invoke such an action. It seems that he is emboldened by an authorisation given to him by the Director of Higher Education through his proceedings in Rc. No.259/DC5-l/89 dated 7-3-1989, which were to the effect of drawing salary and paying to himself and also to other staff members in view of the dispute with regard to the management which is pending adjudication under Section 11 of A.P. (Telengana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1357 Fasli, By that reason there was no authority or delegation to the Writ Petitioner to seek transfer of the premises. His request in that regard was wholly without any authority and the same is without any justification. We cannot countenance the argument in favour of the Writ Petitioner on that issue.
6. Coming to the second issue, namely, claim of salaries and complaint with regard to the same, we are now apprised of the real situation by Mr. D. Sudharshana Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Education, to the effect that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the Writ petitioner for misconduct and enumerated some charges, which are placed before us. It is stated that a shpw cause notice was issued to the Writ Petitioner, and that the petitioner had also filed his reply. It is also admitted by Mr. Mirza Munawwar AH Baig, the learned counsel for the petitioner. If that be so, the desciplinary authority concerned, namely, Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Hyderabad, shall conduct an enquiry and conclude the said proceedings positively within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. For avoiding delay, we direct the Writ Petitioner and also Dr. Syed Tajuddin Quadri, to be present before the said Regional Joint Director, Hyderabad on 1st September, 1992 and participate in the enquiry which shall be held day to day.
7. In the circumstances, no relief can be granted as sought for by the Writ Petitioner except giving a direction which we have issued to the Regional Joint Director, Hyderabad mentioned supra.
8. In as much as the Regional Joint Director is not a party to the Writ Petition, the Registry is directed to communicate immediately copy of this order to the said Regional Joint Director, Higher Education, whose office said to be situated at Nampally, opposite to Latha Theatre, Gandhi Bhavan Road.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed subject to the above observations and directions. No costs.
10. Petition dismissed.