Mohammed Haneef v. Karnataka State Board of Wakf
Case brief
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED…
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED…
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.15605 OF 2017 (GM-WAKF)
BETWEEN :
MOHAMMED HANEEF, S/O M.ZAKARIYA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, SAAD MANZIL, HYDER ALI ROAD, KUDROLI, MANGALORE – 575 003.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.MOHAMMED NIYAZ S., ADVOCATE)
AND :
2
DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALORE – 575 003.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.H. HANEEF, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2, R3 AND R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.3.2017 AT ANNEXURE-L ISSUED BY THE R-1; DIRECT THE R-1 TO INVOKE SECTION 65 OF THE WAKF ACT, 1995 AND THEREBY APPONT AND ADMINISTRATOR TO THE NADUPALLI JUMMA MASJID, KUDROLI, MANGALORE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that
the purpose of this petition has been fulfilled and the same has become infructuous and seeks to dismiss this petition for the aforesaid reasons.
3
The memo is filed and the same is taken on
record. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.
Sd/JUDGE
NM
2 provisions across 2 enactments
MOHAMMED HANEEF
KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKF
MANAGING COMMITTEE (UNDER CHALLENGE), NADUPALLI JUMMA MASJID, KUDROLI, MANGALORE
WAKF OFFICER, MANGALORE DISTRICT WAKF OFFICE, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALORE
SRI. NAZEER AHMED
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court