Disposed

Md.Shafiullah,Trustee v. The TamilNadu Wakf Board

Madras HC30 Aug 2018WP/22161/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a consensual disposal, the High Court directed the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board to consider the petitioner's representations dated 2017 and 2018, hold an enquiry, and pass orders within eight weeks of serving this order.

What did the court decide?

Respondent to consider petitioner's representations from 2017-2018, hold an enquiry under the Wakf Act, and pass orders within eight weeks with due hearing.

Md.Shafiullah,Trustee Vs The TamilNadu… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 30.08.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

W.P.No. 22161 of 2018 and W.M.P. No.25980 of 2018

Md.Shafiullah

... Petitioner

The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, rep. By its Chief Executive Officer, No.1, Jaffar Syrang Street,

¶10

Vallal Seethakathi Nagar,

¶11

Chennai – 600001. ... Respondent

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the representations dated 10.05.2017, 28.05.2017 and 10.01.2018 of the petitioner with further direction to hold an enquiry in exercise of powers under Sections 70 and 71 of the Wakf Act, 1995 for the purpose contemplated under Sections 38 and 65 of the Wakf Act, 1995 in the interest of the petitioner.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Tholgappian

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.G.Mohammed Aseef

¶15

ORDER

¶16

By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶17

2.The petitioner has come up with this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent to consider his representations dated 10.05.2017, 28.05.2017 and 10.01.2018 by holding an enquiry in exercise of powers under Sections 70 and 71 of the Wakf Act, 1995 for the purpose contemplated under Sections 38 and 65 of the Wakf Act, 1995.

¶18

3.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has submitted representations dated 10.05.2017, 28.05.2017 and 10.01.2018 claiming the same relief as prayed in

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

this writ petition, but, the said representations are yet to be disposed of by the respondent. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶21

4.Mr.G.Mohammed Aseef, learned Standing Counsel taking notice for the respondent, submitted that the respondent be directed to consider the petitioner's representations and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶22

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court directs the respondent to consider the petitioner's representations dated 10.05.2017, 28.05.2017 and 10.01.2018 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as any of the interested parties, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

6.Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. No
costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IX)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vga
To
The Chief Executive Officer,
The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board,
No.1, Jaffar Syrang Street,
Vallal Seethakathi Nagar,
Chennai – 600001.
+1cc to Mr.G.Mohammed Aseef, Advocate Sr.59583
+1cc to Mr.R.Tholgappian, Advocate Sr.59645
W.P.No. 22161 of 2018
sun[co]
srg 14/09/2018

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Md.Shafiullah,Trustee v. The TamilNadu Wakf Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md.Shafiullah,Trustee v. The TamilNadu Wakf Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.P.Srinivasan, Vs The Tahsildar

Cogzidel Technologies Pvt.Ltd. Vs The Managing Director

Prof.Dr.M.Kuppuswamy, Vs The District Collector

Mohan, Vs The Thasildar

N.Arulmani Vs The Director

R.Manjula, Vs The Sub Collector