Dismissing a criminal writ petition alleging police inaction regarding Masjid management complaints, the Court held that jurisdiction lies with the WAKF Board under the WAKF Act, 1985, not police, for disputes between groups claiming management.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
913-wp.1664.2018.doc
1/2
nsc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1664 OF 2018
Attaullah Abdul Hamid Shaikh ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
Mr.Rakesh Singh i/b K.R.Tiwari & Co., for the Petitioner.
Mrs.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent-State.
Mr.Vinod Sangvikar i/b Talekar and Associates, for the Respondent No.8.
CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.
DATE : 21st JUNE, 2018
P.C. :
913-wp.1664.2018.doc
2/2
addressed to the WAKF Board. If the Masjid is a WAKF, then it is the WAKF Board established under the WAKF Act, 1985, which would have jurisdiction in respect of the management of the said Masjid. The police obviously cannot involve themselves in the dispute between two competing groups who are laying a claim to the management of the Masjid.
(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)
(R. M. SAVANT, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Court should grant relief to the petitioner for police inaction regarding complaints about Masjid management.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Attaullah Abdul Hamid Shaikh
The State of Maharashtra
R. M. Savant
Revati Mohite Dere
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
