Dismissed

Muhalli Muthavalli Alhaj.K.M.Kalifa Mastan v. The Adhoc Board of Administrators

Madras HC29 Jan 2020WP/370/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a hereditary trustee of Nagore Dargah, sought a temporary room for function activities under Art. 226. Court refused, noting a pending Division Bench case examining the same scheme, avoiding interference with ongoing judicial review.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no relief granted; petitioner directed to approach Division Bench.

Muhalli Muthavalli Alhaj.K.M.Kalifa Mastan Vs The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 29.01.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

W.P.No.370 of 2020

¶6

Muhalli Muthavalli Alhaj.K.M.Kalifa Mastan .. Petitioner

¶7

..Vs..

¶8

The Adhoc Board of Administrators, Nagore Dargah Interim Adhoc Administrators, Nagore Dargah, Nagore – 611 002.

¶9

The Manager, Rep. By Mr.Jahabar Hussain, Nagore Dargah, Nagore – 611 002. Nagapattinam District. ..Respondents

¶10

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Roc.No.191/2018/A2, dated 12.11.2018 issued by the 1^st respondent herein, to quash the same and to allot a room to the petitioner which is located at the right outside of the interior officer's room (Dharuka Room) of Dargah within a time frame stipulated by this Court.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan for MR.S.Kaithamalai kumaran

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan

¶13

The writ petitioner has approached this Court to issue a Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the impugned order made in Roc.No.191/2018/A2, dated 12.11.2018 issued by the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

¶14

The petitioner Muhalli Muthavalli Alhaj.K.M.Kalifa Mastan (hereditary Dargah Kalifa) is a first Hereditary Trustee of the Nagore Dargah at Nagore. The religious function in the

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

said Dargah at Nagore had commenced on 26.01.2020 and it is ongoing and it is to end on 06.02.2020. The petitioner is entrusted with various activities. This has been explained in paragraph 5 of his affidavit which is extracted below for better appreciation:

¶18

“5. I submit that I being the Dargah Kalifa is entrusted with various activities and my nature of work have been recognized by the 1^st respondent vide letter dated 16.10.2018. As the Nagore Dargah is a pillar of religious harmony people cut across all communities visit the Dargah throughout the year and especially during the annual urs conducted for Periya Andavar and Chinna Andavar. As a Hereditary Kalifa of Nagore Dargah I have been residing over the customary usage, traditional rituals of the Dargah through out the year. Throughout the year numerous dignitaries visit Dargah. My role is to welcome the dignitaries and the common people and pray for their welfare. For the said activities I have been using the passage which is located at the right outside of Interior office room (Dharuka Room) of Dargah to welcome the dignitaries and the visitors and to explain them the miracles of the Dargah, to bless them and to enlighten them the specialties of his Holiness Nagore Andavar Hazarth Shahul Hameed Badusha who is a sovereign and revered sage.”

¶19

The petitioner now seeks a small privilege or a concession to be granted by the respondents. He claims that it would be to his advantage that a room to be alloted for the limited period of function which is on going. It would be convenient to utilize the said room to change his traditional cloths. Therefore, he had made a representation on 08.11.2018 to the respondents to allot a room outside the Dargah. This representation was rejected by the respondents.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner made a plea that the petitioner is seeking a relief which would not endanger the rights of the respondents herein. What he seeks is a temporary place of convenience till the function ends on 06.02.2020.

¶21

However, the learned counsel for the respondents drew the attention of this Court to the order of Division Bench in W.A.No.1640 of 2016 batch case, dated 08.06.2018 wherein the Division Bench had examined in detail the very same scheme under which the Dargha is being run and has passed a detailed order giving various conditional and stipulations.

¶22

¶23

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

¶24

It is pointed out that this present arrangement which is sought for by the petitioner is not approved in the said judgment by that Division Bench. Even though the petitioner is seeking a very limited relief, I am afraid I cannot to grant any relief by encroaching upon the orders already passed by the Division Bench. When a Judicial authority is in the process of examining the scheme, it would be highly improper for this Court to enter upon the same and cull out a few more conditions which might or might not disturb the flow of scheme already framed. It would not be proper for the petitioner to seek the very same relief in the present writ petition which he also claims before the Division Bench also.

¶25

With the above observations, I am not able to grant a relief. It is open to the petitioner to approach the Division Bench by seeking the present relief. I understand it would be highly impossible to get the relief during the course of the function which ends on 06.02.2020. But in order to make it a permanent place of convenience and allotment of rooms, he may seek such relief before the Division Bench or any other authority or before the judicial authority where the scheme is now pending for consideration.

¶26

With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vum +1cc to Mr.S.Kaithamalai kumaran, Advocate SR.6469 W.P.No.370 of 2020 MR(CO) CB(25/02/2020)

¶27

¶28

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

Muhalli Muthavalli Alhaj.K.M.Kalifa Mastan v. The Adhoc Board of Administrators

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhalli Muthavalli Alhaj.K.M.Kalifa Mastan v. The Adhoc Board of Administrators

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamana Ashok Kumar Vs The Union of India

A.Abdul Rasheed Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Sowbhaya, Vs The District Revenue Officer

S.Raja Vs The Executive Engineer and

Balasubramaniam Rajalakshmi, Vs Union of India

Balasubramaniam Rajalakshmi Arun Eashwar Vs Union of India