Dismissed¶¶57

Shri Mohd Jeelani v. Shri Khadar Basha

Karnataka HC22 Jan 2025RP/200011/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition dismissed — RP No.200011/2023 in CCC No.200133/2022, High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, 22.01.2025; contempt proceedings dropped 21.10.2022; listing notified in advance; no adjournment/rehearing for counsel's absence; writ of mandamus (Single Judge order dt 04.10.2021) to consider representation dt 25.12.2002 did not bar inquiry; remedy is appropriate proceedings, not review; Order XLVII Rule 5 r/w Section 114 CPC; Karnataka State Board of Wakfs; W.P.No.202518/2017 (GM-WAKF).

What did the court decide?

Listing of the case on 21.10.2022 was notified in advance; therefore there is no merit in the contention that the matter was heard in the absence of the petitioners. ¶¶51

Shri Mohd Jeelani Vs Shri Khadar Basha — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-K:414-DB RP No.200011/2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶10

REVIEW PETITION NO.200011/2023 IN

¶11

CCC No.200133/2022

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

SHRI MOHD. JEELANI S/O ABDUL LATEEF AGASBAL AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶14

OCC. SERVICE

¶15

SHRI MOFD. RAUF S/O ABDUL LATEEF AGASBAL AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶16

OCC. BUSINESS

¶17

SHRI MOHD. IRFAN S/O ABDUL LATEEF AGASBAL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OCC. BUSINESS

¶18

Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶19

SHRI ILIYAS S/O ABDUL LATEEF AGASBAL AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶20

OCC. BUSINESS

¶21

ALL ARE R/AT NEAR MAN KHADRI DARGHA KIRTHINAGAR

¶22

VIJAYPUR- 586 109 &PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI C.S.INAMDAR, ADVOCATE (VC))

¶24

AND:

¶25

SHRI KHADAR BASHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC. ADDL. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKFS

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC-K:414-DB RP No.200011/2023

¶28

6^TH CUNNINGHAM ROAD

¶29

BENGALURU-560 052

¶30

THE SECRETARY

¶31

TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF WAKF AND HAJJ VIKAS SOUDHA

¶32

BENGALURU-560 001 &RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI P.S. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (PH) SRI GOPAL KRISHNA YADAV, HCGP FOR R2 (VC))

¶34

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 5 OF CPC READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2022 (ANNEXURE-D ) PASSED BY THIS COURT IN C.C.C.NO.200133/2022 (CIVIL) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶35

THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)

¶39

Heard both side.

¶40

This petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 21.10.2022 whereunder the contempt proceedings initiated against respondent No.1 was dropped.

¶41

The records show that the petitioners filed W.P.No.202518/2017 (GM-WAKF) for a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure-K/the order dated 04.03.2016 passed by respondent No.1 and for writ of mandamus to respondent

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC-K:414-DB RP No.200011/2023

¶44

No.1 to consider the representation of petitioners dated 25.12.2002 (Annexure-F in Writ Petition).

¶45

Petitioners filed C.C.C.No.200133/2022 (Civil) contending that, respondent No.1 in the contempt proceedings has not complied with the order of mandamus. The notice was issued against the respondents. On 19.10.2022, respondent No.1 filed affidavit along with documents saying that the representation is considered. Since the representation was considered, on 21.10.2022 this Court passed order dropping the contempt proceedings.

¶46

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that as respondent No.1 passed order in the absence of the petitioners and the same is bad in law. He further contends that there was no scope for conducting inquiry in his absence and respondent No.1 conducted farce inquiry and passed the order.

¶47

Sri Gopal Krishna Yadav, learned HCGP for respondent No.2 and Sri P.S.Malipatil, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 submit that the petitioners were notified of hearing date, writ of mandamus was passed, hence the proceedings were dropped. They further submit that if the

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC-K:414-DB RP No.200011/2023

¶50

petitioners contend that the order passed by respondent No.1 was not in accordance with law, their remedy is elsewhere and not by way of review petition.

¶51

As rightly pointed out by learned Counsel for the respondents, listing of the case on 21.10.2022 was notified in advance. Therefore we do not find any merit in the petition that the matter was heard in the absence of the petitioners. When listing of the matter was notified, it was for the Counsel to appear before the Court and conduct the case. For his absence, the matter could not be adjourned or reheard.

¶52

So far as legality of the order passed by virtue of writ of mandamus, as rightly pointed out by learned Counsel for the respondents, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.10.2021 shows that the present respondent No.1 was directed to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 25.12.2002 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The order did not bar holding any inquiry in passing the orders on the representation. Even otherwise, if the petitioners feel that the said order is legally unsustainable, their remedy is to

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC-K:414-DB RP No.200011/2023

¶55

question the same in appropriate proceedings and not by way of review petition. There is no merit in the review petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

Review petition is dismissed.

¶58

In view of dismissal of the petition, pending IAs, if any,

¶59

stood disposed of accordingly.

¶60

Sd/(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE

¶61

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE