Syed Mrutuza Hussaini Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Syed Mrutuza Hussaini Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer effectively granted: respondents directed to provide necessary police protection for the 'Urus' on 07.03.2025 and 08.03.2025; petitioner to bear any requisite fees; the rival claimant remains entitled to perform per the order dated 03.08.2012; hand delivery of the order permitted.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are to be directed (by writ of mandamus) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure-G), submitted on 11.02.2025, seeking police protection for the 'Urus' scheduled on 07.03.2025 and 08.03.2025. +1 more

Court's answer

The respondent-authorities are to be directed to provide necessary police protection to the 'Urus' to be held on 07.03.2025 and 08.03.2025, as the earlier order recognises the right to hold the 'Urus' for the petitioner and the rival claimants, despite the Police endorsement apprehending breach of peace.

Ratio / Principle

Once a matter is remitted/remanded, the interim order which was operating before the remand would revive and continue after the remand before the Court/Tribunal which passed it.

Key takeaways

Since the Tribunal's interim order directing performance of the 'Urus' by rotation once in three months was set aside by this Court (order dated 24.07.2024) and status-quo was ordered, the earlier order dated 03.08.2012 comes into operation; it is in the nature of an interim order and recognises the rights of both parties to perform the 'Urus'.ratio¶¶59
If any fees are required to be paid for the police protection, the petitioner shall pay the same.obiter¶¶62
This order does not prevent Sayyed Mainuddin Hussain from performing those activities in terms of the order dated 03.08.2012.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Oral order of a single Judge (Anant Ramanath Hegde J.), High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, dated 03-03-2025, in Writ Petition No.200515/2025 (GM-POLICE) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, hereditary Sajjad Nashin and Mutavalli of Darga Hazarath Hashimpeer, Vijayapura, sought police protection for the 'Urus' fixed on 07.03.2025 and 08.03.2025; his representation dated 10.02.2025 was rejected by endorsement of the Circle Police Inspector amid rival claims of one Sayyed Mainuddin Hussain. Recounting the litigation — dispute pending before the Wakf Tribunal, Belagavi (KWT/BGR/SR/APPLN Nos.6/2012 and 8/2010), this Court's order dated 03.08.2012 in W.P.No.82842/2011 permitting joint performance, setting aside (order dated 24.07.2024 in W.P.No.203733/2024) of the Tribunal's rotation order with status-quo, remand following the Tribunal's order dated 01.08.2024, and dismissal of the writ appeal (08.04.2024) — the Court, relying on United Bank of India, Calcutta v. Abhijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., (2000) 7 SCC 357, held that an interim order operating before remand revives and continues after remand; consequently the order dated 03.08.2012 came into operation, recognising both parties' right to perform the 'Urus'. The respondent-authorities were directed to provide necessary police protection despite the Police apprehending breach of peace; any fee to be paid by the petitioner; the rival claimant was not prevented from performing per the 2012 order; no opinion was expressed on the merits pending before the Tribunal, with liberty reserved to the rival claimant to approach this Court. Petition allowed — 'Ordered accordingly'; hand delivery of the order permitted.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1399 WP No.200515 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

WRIT PETITION NO.200515 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

BETWEEN:

SYED MRUTUZA HUSSAINI S/O SYED MAHMOOD HUSSAINI PEERZADE, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HEREDITARY SAJJAD NASHIN AND MUTAVALLI, DARGA HAZARATH HASHIMPEER, VIJAYAPURA, R/O: CTS NO.1925, NEXT TO HAZARAT HASHIMPEER DARGA, VIJAYAPUR – 586 101.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI D.P.AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by SHIVAKUMAR HIREMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU- 560 001.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM DISTRICT VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT, VIJAYAPURA – 586 101.

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT, VIJAYAPURA – 586 101.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1399 WP No.200515 of 2025

THE TAHASILDAR CUM TALUKA EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE VIJAYAPURA TALUKA, TQ AND DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 101.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, A.G.A.)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OF DIRECTION IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER ANNEXURE-G, NAMELY THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10-02-2025 SUBMITTED ON 11-02-2025 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 WITHIN 05 DAYS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts

notice on behalf of the respondents.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned AGA.

This petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus to consider the representation at Annexure-G. The said

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1399 WP No.200515 of 2025

representation dated 10.02.2025 is submitted on 11.02.2025

to the respondents No.2 and 3.

This Court has perused the said representation.

The petitioner in the said representation

addressed to respondent Nos.2 and 3 has narrated the facts relating to a Durga located in Survey No.1923 of Ward III, Vijayapur. The said representation makes reference to several Court proceedings and the orders passed therein with reference to Durga referred to above. In the said representation it is submitted that, ‘Urus’ is going to be performed on 07.03.2025 and 08.03.2025 and apprehending the dispute between the two parties, which are claiming right to perform the said ‘Urus’, a request is made to provide necessary police protection to avert possible untoward incident/s on the said dates.

The application which was required to be considered in the light of the ensuing ‘Urus’ on 07.03.2025 and 08.03.2025, was not considered by the respondents.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1399 WP No.200515 of 2025

Accordingly, the present writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus.

Learned AGA appearing for the respondents would submit that, the representation is considered today and accordingly, an endorsement is issued, rejecting the prayer made in the said representation.

The memo filed by the learned AGA is taken on

record.

The aforementioned endorsement issued by the Circle Police Inspector, would reveal that, in the ‘Urus’, that is to take place in the aforementioned property, people in huge numbers participated in the last year. Noticing the dispute between two parties, pending before the Court, the Tahasildar acting as an Administrator has supervised the ‘Urus’ activities. Thus, application seeking police protection was rejected and the petitioner is directed to follow the procedure as held in the last year.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend

that, the petitioner is claiming exclusive right to perform

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1399 WP No.200515 of 2025

‘Urus’, whereas, one more person by name Sayyed Mainuddin Hussain, is claiming a joint right to perform ‘Urus’. Along with the petitioner.

It is noticed that, the dispute between two parties to perform ‘Urus’ is pending adjudication before the Wakf Tribunal, Belagavi in KWT/BGR/SR/APPLN Nos.6/2012 and 8/2010. On an earlier occasion, this Court in W.P.No.82842/2011 had permitted both parties to perform ‘Urus’ jointly in terms of the order dated 03.08.2012.

Thereafter, the Wakf Tribunal in the aforesaid proceedings, vide order dated 01.08.2014 has modified the order passed by this Court and directed the rival parties to perform ‘Urus’ once in three months by rotation. The said order is called in question before this Court by filing Writ Petition No.203733/2024.

This Court vide order dated 24.07.2024 has set aside the order passed by the Tribunal which had modified the order passed by this Court, on 03.08.2012 and this Court

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1399 WP No.200515 of 2025

directed status-quo and the tribunal was directed to decide the dispute before it on merits.

The Tribunal in terms of the order dated 01.08.2024 allowed the claim of the present petitioner and rejected the claim of Sayyed Mainuddin Hussain. That order is called in question before this Court in Writ Petition No.204572/2014 and Writ Petition No.204571/2024 and the writ petitions were allowed and remanded to the tribunal for fresh consideration. The writ appeal filed challenging the order of remand was dismissed vide order dated 08.04.2024.

Under the circumstance, what can be noticed is that, the matter is back before the tribunal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India, Calcutta Vs. Abhijit Tea Co., Pvt., Ltd., reported in 2000 (7) SCC 357 to contend that, once the matter is remitted to the trial Court, the interim orders which were operating before the trial Court would revive. This Court has perused the aforementioned Judgment.

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1399 WP No.200515 of 2025

Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in saying that, the said interim order which was pending before the remand, would revive and continue after the remand of the matter to the Court which has passed the interim order.

It is to be noticed that, the earlier interim order directing the parties to perform ‘Urus’ by rotation once in three months, is set aside by this Court and this Court has passed an order of status-quo. Since the interim order granted by the Tribunal was set aside and status-quo was ordered, what is to be noticed is that, the earlier order dated 03.08.2012 would come into operation and the said order is in the nature of the interim order. The said order recognizes the rights of both parties to perform ‘Urus’.

The respondent-Police in their endorsement apprehend breach of peace. This Court is of the view that, the respondent-authorities are to be directed to provide necessary police protection to the ‘Urus’ to be held on 07.03.2025 and 08.03.2025, as earlier order recognizes the right to hold ‘Urus’ for the petitioner and rival claimants.

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1399 WP No.200515 of 2025

It is further stated that, if any fees is required to

be paid for the said purpose, the petitioner shall pay the same.

It is also required to be noticed that, this order

does not prevent Sayyed Mainuddin Hussain to perform those activities in terms of order dated 03.08.2012.

It is also made clear that, this order should not be construed as having expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim which is pending before the trial Court.

In case, Sayyed Mainuddin Hussain, is aggrieved by the aforementioned order, he is at liberty to move this Court.

24. Ordered accordingly.

Hand delivery of this order is permitted.

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

SVH

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Endorsement issued by the Circle Police Inspector rejecting the petitioner's application/representation seeking police protection for the 'Urus' and directing the petitioner to follow the procedure followed last year (under which the Tahasildar, acting as Administrator, supervised the 'Urus' activities); the learned AGA stated the representation was considered on the day of hearing and the endorsement issued.¶¶43
Circle Police Inspector
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's representation (Annexure-G) dated 10.02.2025 was submitted on 11.02.2025 to respondents Nos. 2 and 3.¶¶32
Prior proceeding
In the representation, apprehending dispute between the two parties claiming the right to perform the 'Urus', the petitioner requested necessary police protection for the 'Urus' scheduled on 07.03.2025 and 08.03.2025.¶¶36
Prior proceeding
Dispute between the two parties over the right to perform the 'Urus' is pending adjudication before the Wakf Tribunal, Belagavi in KWT/BGR/SR/APPLN Nos.6/2012 and 8/2010.¶¶48
Prior proceeding
Earlier, in W.P.No.82842/2011, this Court permitted both parties to perform the 'Urus' jointly in terms of the order dated 03.08.2012.¶¶48
Prior proceeding
The Wakf Tribunal, vide order dated 01.08.2014, modified the order passed by this Court and directed the rival parties to perform the 'Urus' once in three months by rotation.¶¶49
Prior proceeding
The Tribunal's rotation order was called in question before this Court by filing Writ Petition No.203733/2024.¶¶49
Prior proceeding
By order dated 24.07.2024, this Court set aside the Tribunal's order modifying the order dated 03.08.2012.¶¶50
Prior proceeding
This Court directed status-quo and the Tribunal was directed to decide the dispute before it on merits.¶¶52
Prior proceeding
The Tribunal, in terms of the order dated 01.08.2024, allowed the claim of the present petitioner and rejected the claim of Sayyed Mainuddin Hussain.¶¶53
Prior proceeding
That Tribunal order was called in question in Writ Petition No.204572/2014 and Writ Petition No.204571/2024; the writ petitions were allowed and remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.¶¶53
Prior proceeding
The writ appeal challenging the order of remand was dismissed vide order dated 08.04.2024.¶¶53
Prior proceeding
As a result, the matter stands back before the Tribunal.¶¶55