Imam of a masjid removed by its managing committee without notice or enquiry challenged the removal letter and notice board announcement. Court found removal violated principles of natural justice, quashed the letter and notice, and allowed respondents to act per Karnataka Wakf Rules after due process.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH WRIT PETITION NO. 102873 OF 2024 (GM-WAKF)
BETWEEN:
ASHPAK AHMAD @ DILSHAD S/O. IBRAHIM ANSARI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: IMAM (MOULANA), R/O. 279, NEAR NAKA, CHANDAVAR, TQ: HONNAVAR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
GIRIJA A BYAHATTI
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA DHARWAD BENCH
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.L. LADKHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. I.A. MULLA, ADV. FOR R4; R2 & R3 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING/SETTING ASIDE THE LETTER DATED 25/04/2024 ISSUED BY PRESIDENT OF RESPONDENT NO.4 AND SO ALSO NOTICE ATTACHED TO THE RESPONDENT NO.4 NOTICE BOARD NOTICE UNDATED WHEREIN THE PETITIONER IS REMOVED FROM THE POST OF IMAM (MOULANA) OF RESPONDENT NO.4 MASJID, THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/02/2024 IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND A1; TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE THE PETITIONER HAS THE IMAM (MOULANA) TO THE RESPONDENT NO.4 I.E NOORANI MOHALLA AND SULATHANI MOHALLAD MASJID.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
respondent authority to continue the petitioner as the Imam to the respondent No.4, i.e., Noorani Mohalla and Sulathani Mohallad Masjid and grant such other relief as deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
Masjid have submitted request letter on 18.05.2024 to continue the petitioner’s service.
Regulations. No opportunity was given before removing him from the post of Imam and hence the same is illegal and it requires interference.
the managing committee was self styled body and not duly elected in the general body meeting and his appointment itself is illegal and arbitrary and not valid. The management of said institution was self styled and not duly elected according to the said letter is produced as Annexure-R3 issued by the respondent No.1. It is also contended that respondent No.4 Wakf Board as per Chapter VI Sub Clause (c) the managing committee has power to recruit the staff and also remove them and produced Annexure-R4, stating that respondent No.4 has all the powers to remove him.
material facts and hence not legally entitled any relief as claimed to quash Annexure-A and A1.
counsel appearing for the respondent, and in terms of the petitioner he was appointed as Imam vide Annexure-B at the salary of Rs.12,000/- per month and also statement also discloses for having made the payment. It is also the contention that some of them are also made the request to continue the service and also counsel would contend that without giving an opportunity he has been removed from the service. Respondent also merely relies upon the Annexure-R5 stating that there was complaints against him and in view of the conduct of this petitioner there were differences between the persons in the institution and he also lost the confidence of the committee and hence, decision was taken. But respondent’s counsel fails to bring any notice of this Court that before removing him from service any notice is issued to the petitioner and only relies upon Annexure-R5 complaint and even not placed any material for having conducted any
enquiry before removing him and without giving any opportunity he has been removed and the very contention of the petitioner is that he is removed in violation of principles of natural justice.
the respondents to take the decision by giving an opportunity by causing any notice or holding any
enquiry and remove him from service as per Chapter
6 of Karnataka Wakf Rules as contended and no dispute with regard to the fact that as per clause 4C of the chapter 6 there is power having appointment or remove the staff and the same must be in accordance with law and pass appropriate order having given opportunity to the petitioner.
Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
gab – upto para 4 SMM – para 5 to end CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner could be removed from the post of Imam without notice or enquiry in violation of principles of natural justice.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ashpak Ahmad @ Dilshad
The Chief Executive Officer, Karnataka State Board of Waqf
The Administrator, Karnataka State Board of Waqf
The District Advisory Committee, by Waqf Officer, District Waqf Office, Uttara Kannada
Jamatul Muslimeen Chandavar
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
