Dismissed¶¶27

Anjuman Himayatul Islam Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC10 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/4769/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition by a Madrasa-running registered society (Societies Registration Act, 1860) seeking mandamus to decide its representation over persons wrongly claiming to be Office Bearers and to verify records on recognition of the Governing Body. Keywords: W.P.(C); Article 226; mandamus; representation; society; Governing Body; Office Bearers; Madrasa; misrepresentation; recognition; civil suit withdrawn 20.03.2026; adjudication of competing rights; appropriate remedy; dismissal with liberty; CM APPL. 23316/2026 exemption allowed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law. ¶¶27

Anjuman Himayatul Islam Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law.

¶¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the reliefs sought — a mandamus directing the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation and directing Respondent No. 2 to verify records regarding recognition of the lawful Governing Body — are amenable to be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶¶23

Court's answer

The nature of the relief prayed in the writ petition may not be amenable to be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since the petitioner has sufficient mechanism to get its grievance redressed if it relates to the existing Governing Body's Office Bearers.

¶¶23

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner cannot, under the guise of a representation, seek adjudication of the competing rights of the Office Bearers and the persons holding position in the concerned Society.

¶¶23

Key takeaways

The Court did not find it necessary to direct the respondent to decide the petitioner's pending representation.ratio¶¶26
The petitioner will have to take appropriate remedy in accordance with law.ratio¶¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ANJUMAN HIMAYATUL ISLAM AHLE SUNNAT WAL JAMAAT v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS., W.P.(C) 4769/2026 (High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J., decided 10.04.2026): Mandamus — representation of registered society — dispute over Office Bearers. The petitioner, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 running a Madrasa, alleged that certain persons wrongly represented themselves as Office Bearers, interfering in its management and administration. It sought a writ directing the respondents to decide its representation dated 11.02.2026 (received 12.02.2026) and directing Respondent No. 2 to verify records regarding recognition of the lawful Governing Body. Held, dismissing the petition: the nature of the relief prayed may not be amenable to be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the petitioner has sufficient mechanism to get such grievance redressed where it relates to the existing Governing Body's Office Bearers; and under the guise of a representation the petitioner cannot seek adjudication of the competing rights of the Office Bearers and the persons holding position in the Society. The Court did not find it necessary to direct the respondent to decide the pending representation; liberty was reserved to the petitioner to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law.

¶1

$~62

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4769/2026

¶4

ANJUMAN HIMAYATUL ISLAM AHLE SUNNAT WAL JAMAAT .....Petitioner

¶5

.....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Hemant Baisla, Mr. Hemant Kumar Niranjan, Ms. Neha Yadav , Ms. Archana Goswami , Ms. Shikha, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Through: Mr. Lalltaksh Joshi, Ms. Minu kumari, Advocates.

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 10.04.2026

¶13

CM APPL. 23316/2026 (EXEMPTION)

¶14

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶15

Application stands disposed of.

¶16

W.P.(C) 4769/2026

¶17

The petition is for the following reliefs:

¶18

“ a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to consider and decide the Petitioner’s representation dated 11.02.2026 ( Received on 12.02.2026), in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order , within a fixed and time-bound period ;

¶19

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No. 2 to verify the records available with it and take an appropriate decision regarding recognition of the lawful

¶20

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 13:38:34

¶21

Governing Body of the Petitioner Society, in accordance with law ”

¶22

The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The affairs of the petitioner-society are being managed by a Governing Body constituted in accordance with its Memorandum of Association and Bye-laws.

¶23

The facts of the case would indicate that the petitioner-society is engaged in running a Madrasa. The petitioner submits that prior to year 2022 certain persons were engaged by the petitioner-society for purpose of teaching Hindi and English to the students of the Madrasa. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that the said persons are wrongly representing themselves as Office Bearers thereby, interfering in the management and administration of the petitioner-society. 7. The grievance of the petitioner pertains to misrepresentation by certain persons as Office Bearers of petitioner-society thereby, interfering with the functioning of the petitioner-society. 8. Several representations have been made regarding the aforenoted grievance. The last representation is dated 12.02.2026. It is further stated that the petitioner filed another civil suit seeking similar relief and later on 20.03.2026 withdrew it with liberty to file afresh. 9. The nature of the relief prayed in the instant writ petition may not be amenable to be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in as much, as the petitioner will have sufficient mechanism to get his grievance redressed if the same relates to existing Governing Body’s Office Bearers. 10. The petitioner under the guise of the representation cannot seek for the adjudication of the competing rights of the Office Bearers and the persons who are holding the position in the concerned Society.

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 13:38:34

¶26

The petitioner will have to take appropriate remedy in accordance with law. The Court, therefore, does not find it necessary to direct the respondent to decide the petitioner’s pending representation.

¶27

Therefore, the petition fails and is, accordingly dismissed.

¶28

However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law.

¶29

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶30

APRIL 10, 2026 aks/ss

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 13:38:34

Anjuman Himayatul Islam Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjuman Himayatul Islam Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs Ex. Capt. Akshay Mohan Molpha

Ashish Mittal Vs Bank of Baroda & Ors.

Promila Bedi Vs Delhi Development Authority and Anr.

Goodskill Securities and Services Limited Vs the Branch Manager, Icici Bank & Ors.

Ram Chander Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rajiv Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Narinder Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vivek Insa Vs Union of India and Ors.

Union Bank of India Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Mr Dharambir Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ms Swastik Boot Factory through Its Proprietor Neena Mahajan Vs Union of India and Ors. & Ors.

Dr. Vaisakh Sanal Vs Maulana Azad Medical College

M/S Nkg Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Public Works Department, Delhi & Anr.

Domino'S Pizza (Jubilant Food Works Ltd) (Dwarka Mor) Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.