Disposed

Sattar Gafur Sarvaiya v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Apr 2019APL/450/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application under Section 482 CrPC, the court set aside the police rejection of the applicant's permission to celebrate Urs function. The court accepted the State's undertaking to grant time-slotted permissions to both the applicant and the opposing Sunni Muslim Jamat to resolve the grievance.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed on condition that permission for Urs function is granted to both applicant and Sunni Muslim Jamat at different time slots.

Sattar Gafur Sarvaiya Vs the State of Maharashtra — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1/3 15 APL 450-19.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.450 of 2019

¶3

Sattar Gafur Sarvaiya .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶4

Mr. Ratnesh Dube for the applicant. Ms.S.D. Shinde, APP for the State.

¶5

CORAM: SHRI RANJIT MORE & SMT. BHARATI H.DANGRE, JJ. DATED : 18^th APRIL 2019

¶6

P.C:-

¶7

1 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶8

2 By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant is challenging the order passed by the Senior Police Inspector, Bhandup Police Station dated 2^nd April 2019 whereby his application seeking permission for celebrating Urs Function on 22^nd and 23^rd April 2019 is rejected.

¶9

3 We have perused the impugned order. The permission of the applicant to celebrate Urs function is rejected on the ground that the Sunni Muslim Jamat has also sought

¶10

Tilak

¶11

2/3 15 APL 450-19.doc

¶12

permission to celebrate Urs and that there is a pending dispute between the two and since the matter is pending before the High Court, permission should be sought from the High Court or from the Wakf Board.

¶13

4 It is the claim of the applicant that he is a tenant of CTS 461, 92/2 which includes four rooms out of 22 rooms. His further case is that in this property, Dargah of Hajrath Hajipeer is located. It is also the case of the applicant that since 18 – 20 years, he is celebrating Urs at the same place.

¶14

5 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the permission can be granted to both, the petitioner as well as Sunni Muslim Jamat to celebrate Urros on 22^nd and 23^rd April 2019.

¶15

6 We specifically asked the learned APP whether the suggestion of the petitioner is acceptable. Learned APP, on instructions of Police Inspector Smt.Sarita Chavan, who is present in the Court makes a statement that the permission to celebrate Urs on 22^nd and 23^rd April at the said place would be granted to both the petitioner as well as Sunni Muslim Jamat at different slots of time. She submit that in the morning of 22^nd and 23^rd April between 10 am to 12 noon, Sunni Muslim Jamat would be granted permission to celebrate Urs and in the evening between 5 pm to 7 pm, on the same dates, permission would be granted to the petitioner. Statement is accepted.

¶16

Tilak

¶17

3/3 15 APL 450-19.doc

¶18

7 In the light of the above statement, grievance in the petition no more survives.

¶19

Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶20

(SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.)

¶21

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶22

Tilak

Sattar Gafur Sarvaiya v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sattar Gafur Sarvaiya v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Shipping Corporation of India Officers Association Vs the Shipping Corporation of India and Anr.

Raghukul Kala Krida Va Sanskrutik Mandal through Harshad Vilas Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Samrat Kala Krida Va Sanskrutik Mandal through Its President and Authorized Dhanpal Gunda Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Shirol Police Station

Mohd. Shakil Abdul Majeed Momin and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr. Sharad Baliram Patil Vs Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner and Ors.

Poonam Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.