Mr. Syed Abbas @ Nawab Saheb, Vs the Director General and Inspector General of Police

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:53882 WP No. 30664 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 30664 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. SYED ABBAS @ NAWAB SAHEB, S/O LATE SYED MAHAMOOD AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, PRESIDENT COMMITTEE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DARGAH OF HAZRATH BABA MIYAN SAHEB ARIFULLAH SHAH KHADRI NEELASANDRA CIVIL STATION BANGALORE 560 047

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF KARNATAKA NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU 560 001

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CENTRAL, CUBBON PARK BENGALURU 560001

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CENTRAL, CUBBON PARK BENGALURU 560001

¶16

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU 560 025

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT OF

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:53882 WP No. 30664 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 03.10.2025 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION, IN ANNEXURE – A BENGALURU.AND CONSEQUENTLY, DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS REPRESENTATION DATED 29.09.2025 AND GRANT NECESSARY PERMISSION AND POLICE PROTECTION FOR THE CONDUCT OF SANDAL AND URS OF HAZRATH SYED BABA MIYAN ARIFULLA SHAH QADRI IN ACCORDANCE WITH VIDE ANNEXURE – B.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs.

¶28

a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the endorsement No.J1/PAS/Permission/2025 dated 03.10.25 issued by the 4th Respondent Inspector of Police, Ashok Nagar Police Station, in Annexure – 'A' Bengaluru; and consequently, direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 29.09.2025 and grant necessary permission and police protection for the conduct of Sandal and Urs of Hazrath Syed Baba Miyan Arifulla Shah Qadri in accordance with law; vide Annexure "B'

¶29

b. Pass such other orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity.

¶30

The grievance of the petitioner is that the representation submitted by the petitioner on 29.09.2025 for grant of necessary permission and

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:53882 WP No. 30664 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

police protection for the conduct of the Sandal and Urs of Hazrath Syed Baba Miyan Arifulla Shah Qadri has not been considered and granted by the respondents.

¶34

Notice having been issued, learned AGA on instructions submitted that there were two groups at the masjid, if permission is granted by respondents for conduct of the Sandal and Urs of Hazrath Syed Baba Miyan Arifulla Shah Qadri, there could be a lawand-order problem.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo producing a judgement and decree in O.S.No.1415 of 1980 which has been filed by the Management Committee of which the petitioner is the President against the other group, which suit came to be decreed and the Committee of which the petitioner is the President was permitted to carry out the Sandal and Urs of Hazrath Syed Baba Miyan Arifulla Shah Qadri.

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:53882 WP No. 30664 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Subsequently, the Masjid-e-Akbari having filed a suit in O.S.No.5 of 2004 before the WAKF Tribunal Bengaluru Division, Bengaluru seeking for injunction restraining the Management Committee and its officers from interfering with the day-to-day management, supervision and administration of the Masjid. The said suit came to be dismissed by the WAKF Tribunal vide order dated 18.11.2009. The said order has been challenged in CRP No.277 of 2015, this Court vide order dated 04.03.2024 dismissed the Revision Petition.

¶40

While dismissing the Revision Petition, this Court has categorically observed that in the earlier suit filed in OS No.1415 of 1980, a decree has been passed in favour of the petitioner enabling them to perform the Sandal and Urs of Hazrath Syed Baba Miyan Arifulla Shah Qadri.

¶41

In that view of the matter, irrespective of whether there are two groups or more, once a decree has

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:53882 WP No. 30664 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

been passed by a Court of law, it is but required for the police authorities to implement the said decree. If necessary, by granting police protection and also maintain law-and-order.

¶46

The respondent-police cannot on the ground that there is an apprehension of a law and order issue, deny the permission to carry out the Sandal and Urs of Hazrath Syed Baba Miyan Arifulla Shah Qadri which has been permitted by trial Court in O.S.No.1415 of 1980 and confirmed by this Court in CRP No.277 of 2015. As such, I pass the following;

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i. The writ petition allowed.

¶49

ii. Respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.09.2025 and grant necessary permission and police protection for the conduct of Sandal and Urs of Hazrath Syed Baba Miyan Arifulla Shah Qadri

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:53882 WP No. 30664 of 2025

¶51

6 -

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

on a date to be fixed by the respondent with suitable police protection.

¶54

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶55

SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49

Mr. Syed Abbas @ Nawab Saheb, v. the Director General and Inspector General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Syed Abbas @ Nawab Saheb, v. the Director General and Inspector General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri v Srinivas Redy Vs the Union of India

Sri Shaji D Vs the Deputy Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Rashid Vs State of Karnataka

Mujis Nature Nutes (Opc) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Axis Bank

Shri Sudheer Kumar Vs Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Sri R R Rakesh Vs Assistant Commissioner