Allowed

Sgn Hafeez Pasha v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Mar 2024WP/5800/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed the 5th respondent to depute two police personnel to protect the petitioner while performing his religious duties as Sajjadanasheen, ensuring no interference by the Waqf Board and witness to proceedings of offerings.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to depute two police personnel to protect petitioner during religious duties and ensure presence during counting of offerings.

Sgn Hafeez Pasha Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

APHC010110652024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶3

AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3327]

¶6

TUESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 5800/2024

Between:

Sgn Hafeez Pasha

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

1.RAVULA NAGARJUNA

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶17

1.GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶18

2.S ARIFULLAH (SC FOR AP WAQF BOARD) The Court made the following:

¶19

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.5800 of 2024

¶22

ORDER:-

¶23

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief;

¶24

“…. to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5^th respondent in issuing letter dt.17.02.2024 refusing to provide police aid/assistance to the petitioner for performing religious and spiritual duties of Sajjadanasheen as per the Dargah customs and practices duly considering the order dt.18.04.2023 passed in W.P.No.9032 of 2023 and Sections 64(2) and 38(3) of The Wakf Act 1995 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also oppose to the settled principles of law and consequently direct the 5^th respondent to provide police aid/assistance for performing religious and spiritual duties i.e. Galafs Thavizis Bandish/Nariyals Urs Festivals and Fatehas of Sajjadanasheen as per the Dargah customs and practices by virtue of order dt.18.04.2023 passed in W.P.No.9032 of 2023 and Sections 64(2) and 38(3) of The Wakf Act 1995 and pass……”

¶25

¶26

Case of the petitioner is that he is the hereditary

¶27

Sajjadanasheen-cum-Mutawalli of Dargah Syed Shah Haji Khawaja Rahmatullah Saheb Peer @ Nayab-e-Rasool and Masjid, A.S.Peta, SPSR Nellore District and performing his duties in accordance with the customs and traditions of the Dargah and as per the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995. Since the A.P. State Waqf Board suspended the petitioner as Mutawalli of Dargah, he challenged the same before this Court and this Court set aside the suspension of the petitioner. Dargah was established in 1776 A.D. by the petitioner’s great grandfathers and since then all the successors as Sajjadanasheen are performing the religious duties in the Dargah regularly. The petitioner 7^th generation Sajjadanasheen-cum-Mutawalli of the Dargah. While so, the respondent No.6 herein and his subordinates are obstructing the petitioner from performing his religious duties. On that petitioner gave a representation on 16.2.2024 to the respondent No.5 to provide police protection for performing religious and spiritual duties of Sajjadanasheen, considering the

¶28

¶29

direction given by this Court in W.P.No.9032 of 2023 as the

¶30

¶31

respondent No.6 herein is continuously violating the said order and not allowing the petitioner to perform Sajjadanasheen duties in the Dargah. But the respondent No.5 refused to grant police protection through his letter dated 17.2.2024. Hence the Writ Petition.

¶32

Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that earlier in Writ Petition No.9032 of 2023, filed by the petitioner herein, this Court passed an order on 18.4.2023, as hereunder,

¶33

“In order to strike a balance between both conflicting claims, it would be appropriate to grant an interim direction restraining the Waqf Board from interfering with the religious duties of the petitioner as Sajjadanasheen. However, the offerings that are being made in the Hundis placed in the name of Sajjadanasheen shall be counted by the Waqf Board in the presence of the petitioner or his representative and kept aside.”

¶34

Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner herein is carrying out religious duties faithfully. According to Senior Counsel, grievance of the petitioner is

¶35

¶36

that despite the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the respondent No.6 and his subordinates are wantonly interfering with the religious and spiritual duties being performed by the petitioner herein and are obstructing him.

¶37

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.6 / Waqf Board denying all the material allegations and contending that time and again the petitioner is resorting in filing complaints against the respondent No.6 and others. According to him, the petitioner is not performing his religious duties and he is allowing his son and his henchmen to enter the Dargah premises and they are performing religious duties instead of the petitioner who is the Sajjadanasheen and that the petitioner is not attending to duties in accordance with the customs and traditions of the Dargah and as per the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995. Hence he prays to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶38

Counter is filed by the respondent No.4 stating that there are differences between the petitioner and the respondent/Management of Dargah i.e. the Waqf Board. It

¶39

¶40

is also stated that the respondent/police has been maintaining an Outpost at the said Dargah by deputing two police personnel by virtue of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.9032 of 2023 and it is only with a view to safeguard the peace and public tranquility. In fact, there are no specific orders for providing police aid at the Dargah.

¶41

Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶42

Admittedly the petitioner is Sajjadanasheen of

¶43

Syed Shah Haji Khwaja Rahamatullah Saheb Peer @ Nayab-e-Rasool and Masjid, A.S.Peta, SPSR Nellore District. He filed Writ Petition No.9032 of 2023 before this Court seeking to declare action of the respondents therein in restraining the petitioner from functioning as hereditary Sajjadanasheen of subject Dargah and interfering with his rights in performing religious and spiritual functions. Vide order dated 18.4.2023 in the said Writ Petition this Court granted an interim direction restraining the Waqf Board from interfering with religious duties of the petitioner as Sajjadanasheen. However, this Court observed the offerings that are being made in Hundies placed in the name of Sajjadanasheen shall be counted by the Waqf Board in the

¶44

¶45

presence of the petitioner or his representative and kept aside, and that the disposal of the said proceeds was ordered to be subject to the result of the Writ Petition.

¶46

According to counter by the respondent No.4, the respondent/police are maintaining a police outpost at the Dargah and two police personnel are deputed to maintain peace and public tranquility. At the same time, deputing the police personnel in the police outpost is not to see that there shall be no interference from the Waqf Board while the petitioner is performing his religious duties. No doubt, the police personnel deputed at the outpost are taking care of peace and tranquility at the subject Dargah. But in the instant case, the petitioner is seeking police aid for a specific purpose as the respondent No.6 is interfering with his religious duties.

¶47

In view of the above reasons, the

¶48

respondent/police are directed to provide protection to the petitioner by deputing two (2) police personnel at Syed Shah Haji Khwaja Rahamatullah Saheb Peer @ Nayab-eRasool and Masjid, A.S.Peta, SPSR Nellore District, who should see that none shall interfere with the petitioner

¶49

¶50

while he is performing his religious duties as

¶51

Sajjadanasheen. It is made clear that the petitioner or his representative shall be present at the time the offerings that are being made in the Hundies placed in the name of Sajjadanasheen are counted by the Waqf Board and to see that the proceeds are kept aside till disposal of W.P.No.9032 of 2023.

¶52

With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶53

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶54

___________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Dated: 19.3.2024 GR

¶55

¶56

187

¶57

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

¶58

WRIT PETITION No.5800 of 2024

¶59

Date:19.03.2024 GR

Sgn Hafeez Pasha v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sgn Hafeez Pasha v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kasumuru Ramanamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Utla Mohan Krishna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kopperi Soujanya Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ankireddy Amarantha Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sirangula Venkata Ratnam Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Seetha Poojari Lakshmi Priyanka Vs Narayanam Narasimha Sharma