Disposed

Zahoor M Khan v. State Of C.g. and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC2 Sept 2014WPC/1983/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of a writ petition seeking directions for access to a mosque. After counsel for the administration assured the petitioner of unrestricted access contingent on following the Imam's instructions, the Court found no need for a judicial order to maintain community harmony.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed off without any direction being issued to the respondents.

Zahoor M Khan Vs State Of C.g. and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

1W @/§

¶2

1N TH E HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR wmm 1<LQQ /2012 I L^'/ 1 x { t

¶3

PETITIONER

¶4

Zahoor M gKhan S/o Late Noor M Khan Age 75 yeairs Occupation Retired Principa} R/o Vinagé Keshkal PS and Tahsn Keshkal lDistrict^BastarCGCG VERSUS ; A

¶5

RSPONDENTSE

¶6

1 ‘ Statg of Chhattisgarh Through, Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya DKS Bhawan, Raipur

¶7

District Raipur CG

¶8

Collector, District Konclagaori", PS Kondagaon Kondagaon CG

¶9

Superintendent of Police District Kondagaon, Konclagaon CG

¶10

Sub—divisional Magistrate Keshkal, PS Keshkal District Kondagaon C G

¶11

Chief Executive Officer Chhattisgarh State Waqf Board Devenclra Nagar, PS Devendra Nagar Raipur CG

¶12

ShriAslam Memon, Secretary, Anjuman Islamia Committee Aged about 48 years R/ o Keshkal PS 8t Tahsil Keshkal, District Kondagaon CG

¶13

Shri Yaqub Me’mon Mutawalh/ Pre sident

¶14

Anjuman Islamia Committee

¶15

PS and Tqh Keshkal Kondagaon CG

¶16

¶17

WRIT PLTITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE ()F MANDAMUS PROHIBITION CERTIORARI ETC OR ANY^.OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER To

¶18

The Hon’ble Chief Justice aah his Companion Justices of the Hon’ble iwh Couit of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

¶19

¶20

MOST RESPECTEULLY SHOWETHI

¶21

¶22

\W)

¶23

Aftejr issuance of notice to thé respondentsL reply has been filed by the respective respondents. After going through the contents of the petition^and respective replies which have beenifiied by the parties, the' dispute mainly appears to be between the petitioner^and respondents 6 i t and 7. i

Rt - i l r l

”s?

However, today, learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7 very fairly submitted that the petitioner would be allowed to offer prayer in the t Mosque, provided the petitioner follows the instructions of the head Priest (lmaam^{oftheMosque).}

¶28

Some apprehension has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner may not be allowed to participate in the congregational prayer offered in the Mosque. To dispel this apprehension, '7 learned counsel for respondents 6 and stated in unequivocal terms that the petitioner should not have such type of apprehension in his mind. The instructions with regard to offering of prayer are given by the head Priest (lmaam) and as long as anyone including the petitioner^abide by such instructions, there is no bar to offer prayer in the Mosque, which also includes offering congregational prayer conducted within the Mosque. 5. In view of what has been stated before this Court by learned counsel for ,the parties, particularly, by learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents 6 and 7, with the hope that the dispute, if any, between the

¶29

petitioner‘and respondents 6 and 7 have melteid down to pave way for harmony against members of the same communitlly and create atmosphere conducive for all to offer prayer in the Mosques and perform religious activities. At this stage, i am not inclined to issue any direction to i respondents 1 to 5 in the matter. This is so, id view of the clear stand taken by the administration and also by Waqf Boardthat the paramount consideration of all is to maintain harmony in the community in the matter of performing religious functions. The stand taken by the respective parties t before this Court, atleast, at present, do not require any judicial order to any of the parties.

¶30

Placing on record the statements made at the bar by learned counsel for the respective parties, this petition is disposed off and the Court hopes that the harmony shall stand stored in which, the petitioner and respondents 6 and 7 offer their prayer and perform religious functions.

¶31

With liberty to revive in case of any dispute, this petition, at this

¶32

stage, is disposed off.

¶33

l Sd/l; Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge

¶34

Deepti

Zahoor M Khan v. State Of C.g. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zahoor M Khan v. State Of C.g. and Ors.

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

Shyam Kumar Gujrati Vs Board of Revenue,M.P. Ors.

Mangni Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Balchand Oswal And Ors. Vs State Govt.of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Sushil Kumar Dhaner Vs M.P.Laghu Udyog Nigam and Ors.

Rohit Singh Tanwar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Reshamlal and Ors. Vs Lakeshari and Anr.