Partly allowed

Anjuman-E-Islam Kudgi v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2019WP/200660/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Order in W.P.No.200660/2019 held that while the Court cannot quash the appointment order without enquiry, it directs the Wakf authorities to consider the petitioner's representation and allegations against a committee member and conduct an enquiry within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider Annexure-G and Annexure-F4, conduct an enquiry, and pass appropriate orders within three months.

Anjuman-E-Islam Kudgi Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY 2019

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA

¶7

W.P.No.200660/2019 (GM-WAKF)

¶8

Between:

¶9

Anjuman-E-Islam, Kudgi Represented by Shri Syed Mehboob Pasha Jahagirdar Age: 61 years, Occ: Retired Employee R/o Kudgi Village Tq. Basavana Bagewadi Dist. Vijayapur – 586 203

¶10

… Petitioner

¶11

(By Sri Sachin M. Mahajan, Advocate)

¶12

And:

¶13

The State of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary Department of Minorities and Welfare and Wakf, Vikas Veedhi Bengaluru – 1

¶14

The Karnataka State Board of Auqaf Represented by its Chief Executive Officer No.6, Darul Awkaf Building

¶15

¶16

	Cunningham Road Bengaluru – 52
3.	The Administrator Karnataka State Board of Auqaf No.6, Darul Awkaf Building Cunningham Road Bengaluru – 52
4.	The District Wakf Advisory Committee Represented by its District Wakf Office, Vijayapura, Tajboudi Vijayapura – 586 101
5.	Kashimsab S/o Gousmoddin Kodaganur Age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o Kudagi Taluka Basavana Bagewadi District Vijayapura – 586 203
6.	Mastansab S/o Dastagirsab Mannabhai Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o Kudagi Taluka Basavana Bagewadi District Vijayapura – 586 203
7.	Saheblal S/o Rajesab Inamdar Age: 25 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o Kudagi Taluka Basavana Bagewadi District Vijayapura – 586 203
8.	Noorkhan S/o Mehaboobsab Dafedar Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o Kudagi Taluka Basavana Bagewadi
	District Vijayapura – 586 203

¶17

¶18

9.	Mohd. Azikhan
	S/o Mohd. Gous Khan Pathan
	Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o Kudagi Taluka Basavana Bagewadi District Vijayapura – 586 203
10.	Moula Ali S/o Mastansab Korbu Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o Kudagi Taluka Basavana Bagewadi District Vijayapura – 586 203
11.	Mastan S/o Hussainbasha Jahagirdar Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o Kudagi Taluka Basavana Bagewadi District Vijayapura – 586 203
12.	Nabisha S/o Husensha Darwesh Age: 54 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o Kudagi Taluka Basavana Bagewadi District Vijayapura – 586 203
13.	Imamsab S/o Babusab Mashal Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o Kudagi Taluka Basavana Bagewadi District Vijayapura – 586 203
14.	Dongrisab S/o Umarsab Nadaf Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o Kudagi Taluka Basavana Bagewadi District Vijayapura – 586 203
15.	Mastansab S/o Lalsab Gaded

¶19

¶20

Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o Kudagi Taluka Basavana Bagewadi District Vijayapura – 586 203

¶21

… Respondents (By Sri K.M. Ghate, AGA for R1; Sri Liyaqat Fareed Ustad, Advocate for R2 to R4, Sri Arunkumar Amargundappa, Advocate for C/R5)

¶22

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 25.01.2018 passed by respondent No.2 in Order No.KSBA/MSC/146/VJR/2002-03, which is produced as Annexure-A and to direct respondent No.2 to consider the application given by the petitioner institution vide AnnexureG with a further direction to approve the managing committee, as per Annexure-G.

¶23

This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the impugned order dated 25.01.2018 as per Annexure-A.

¶26

¶27

It is the first contention of the petitioner that

¶28

he has made representation as per Annexure-G for the purpose of renewal/appointment of committee for management of Anjuman-E-Islam Committee, Kudagi, Basavana Bagewadi Taluk, Vijayapur District, since the period of said committee appointed by the board came to an end as on 16.09.2017. Without considering the said representation, a new committee has been appointed vide Annexure-A dated 25.01.2018 in No.KSBA/MSC/146/VJR/2002-03.

¶29

The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though there are serious allegations against respondent No.5 as per the document at Annexure-F4 by the District Wakf Office, the said document has not been taken into consideration before appointing respondent No.5 herein as the President of new committee constituted on 25.01.2018.

¶30

¶31

In the wake of the above said submissions, I

¶32

have perused the records produced before this Court. In the earlier writ petition filed by one Dastagir S/o Imamsab Momin in W.P.No.200695/2018, vide order dated 29.06.2018, this Court has granted stay of the notification dated 25.01.2018 which is also impugned under this writ petition. The said stay order was granted for a period of twelve weeks. Subsequently, vide order dated 07.01.2019, the said stay order was merged by virtue of dismissal of the writ petition as withdrawn. The Court has observed in the said writ petition at the time of final disposal that the present petitioner has filed an application in I.A.No.2/2018 for impleading on the ground that the petitioner therein has not filed the petition in the name of an institution. Inspite of filing the said application, the Court has observed that when the petitioner wants to withdraw the petition, it cannot prevent the petitioner from

¶33

¶34

withdrawing the petition. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter also it is not brought to the notice of the Court any fresh writ petition was filed by the petitioner in order to get the earlier stay order granted by this Court renewed or extended in any manner. Therefore, it goes without saying that the stay order granted on 29.06.2018 has not been in force as on today.

¶35

Rightly or wrongly, the third respondent has passed an order on 25.01.2018 constituting new managing committee for said Anjuman-E-Isalm Institution, Kudagi village and since then it appears the said managing committee is working. The main object of constituting managing committee is to take care of the institution and work for the benefit of the institution. Therefore, in that context, without any enquiry, this Court cannot directly step into the shoes of respondent No.1 or respondent No.3 and pass orders

¶36

¶37

quashing the order dated 25.01.2018. However, as

¶38

rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, representation as per Annexure-G and also allegations made against respondent No.5 as per Annexure-F4 have not been taken into consideration either at the time of passing the impugned order dated 25.01.2018 or subsequently. Therefore, it is just and necessary for this Court to direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take into consideration Annexure-F4 as well as Annexure-G and make an enquiry and thereafter, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The writ petition is partly allowed. Consequently, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are hereby directed to consider the representation of the petitioner as per Annexure-G and also allegations made against respondent No.5 as per Annexure-F4 and then pass appropriate orders on consideration of the above said documents in

¶41

¶42

accordance with law. However, the said exercise has to be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

NB* Ct: RRJ

Anjuman-E-Islam Kudgi v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjuman-E-Islam Kudgi v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Tuljaram S/O Dasharath Singh Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Ors.

Gurushanthlingayya Vs the Govt. of Karnataka and Ors.

Khasim Gour Vs the Govt. of Karnataka and Ors.

Smt. Sharada Vs Smt. Sumitrabai

Danappa K Soddi Vs Ministry of Panchayath Raj and Ors.

Bagawwa and Ors. Vs Shri Ashok