Dismissed

Hazarath Syed Sadik, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC13 Jul 2021WP/10282/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a mosque Trust, approached the High Court seeking a writ to stop revenue and police authorities from interfering in trust administration. The court held that the interference was justified to maintain harmony based on a genuine complaint and disposed of the petition without issuing directions.

What did the court decide?

The Writ of Mandamus prayed for was not issued; the Writ Petition stands disposed of with no costs.

Hazarath Syed Sadik, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 13.07.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

¶5

W.P. No. 10282 of 2013 and M.P. No. 2 of 2013

¶6

Hasarath Syed Sadik Voliyullah Durga & Mosque Trust rep. by its Member Secretary Mr.M.Shahabudeen Syed Sathiq Nagar, Mangaadu, Kancheepuram District .. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Revenue Divisional Officer Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer Collector's Office Kancheepuram.

¶9

The Inspector of Police T-14, Mangadu Police Station Mangadu. .. Respondents

¶10

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with the day to day administration of the petitioner;s Trust without due process of law.

¶11

For Petitioner : M/s.Achari and Antoni

¶12

For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu Government Advocate

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with the day to day administration of the petitioner's Trust without following the due process of law.

¶15

According to the petitioner Trust, after the demise of Muthavalli and Managing trustee by name Mr.T.A.Mohammed Sultan,

¶16

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

¶17

the constitutional Receiver of the petitioner Trust has nominated one Hajee M. Abdul Rahman as new Muthavalli and other members of the Jamath committee on 20.06.2012. Since the newly formed committee has misappropriated the funds of the Trust and acted against the interest of the petitioner Trust, the Constitutional Receiver of the petitioner Trust dissolved the Jamath Committee headed by Hajee M.Abdul Rahman on 13.11.2012 and subsequently formed a new Jamath Committee on 22.11.2012 and nominated one Mr.Hajee M. Abdul Haleem as Muthavalli of petitioner Trust. As the previous Jamath Committee Members headed by S.Abdul Rahman started creating problems and interfered with the affairs of the petitioner Trust, the petitioner trust made a complaint to the 2^nd respondent requesting to take action against those persons and protect the trust and its property. However the 2^nd respondent erroneously forwarded a report to the 1^st respondent under section 145 Cr.P.C., based on which, the 1^st respondent issued a show cause notice on 31.12.2012 to the members of the newly formed Jamath committee and the members of previous Jamath Committee as if it resulted in a law and order problem and such proceeding initiated by the first respondent is still pending.

¶18

It is the grievance of the petitioner that under the guise of enquiry, the 1^st respondent has directed the petitioner Trust to get permission from the 2^nd respondent to do their day to day administration of the petitioner Trust, which is exfacie illegal and beyond their authority. Hence, left with no other alternative, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶19

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶20

Refuting the averments contained in the Writ Petition, the 2^nd respondent filed a counter affidavit, wherein, in paragraph 12, it is mentioned as follows;

¶21

'12. It is an admitted fact that Tr.Hajee Abdul Rahman is Muthavalli. The petitioner claims that his position as Muthavalli came to an end by dissolution of the committee and replaced by forming a new committee. The petitioner at para 4 accuses that the earlier committee mismanaged the funds of trust and refused to deposit the amount collected and at para 5 admits that the former committee under Tr.Abdul Rahman created problems which resulted in a complaint to 2^nd respondent by the petitioner. The petitioner has suppressed the complaint which is earlier in point of time assigned with CSR.No.872/2012 dt: 25.10.2012 while the petitioner has chosen to give the complaint on 27.11.2012 assigned with CSR.No.1100/2012.'

¶22

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

¶23

In the counter affidavit, the respondent also states that the petitioner only complained of creation of problems by the erstwhile committee headed by Tr.Abdul Rahman and interference of the affairs on the petitioner trust and the situation only necessitated the respondents to invoke section 145 Cr.P.C., for the purpose of maintaining harmony and they are not violating any of the rules and regulations.

¶24

In such a view of the matter, this Court is of the view that interference, if any, by the respondents is to ensure harmony and peace in the functioning of the petitioner Trust on the basis of the complaint received by the second respondent. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents have, without any justification, interfered with the affairs of the petitioner's trust. While so, this Court is not inclined to issue any direction to the respondents, as prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition. Accordingly, by recording the averments made in the counter affidavit of the second respondent, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.2 of 2013 is closed

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

msr/rsh

¶30

¶31

The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶32

Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Collector's Office,

¶33

Kancheepuram.

¶34

The Inspector of Police, T-14, Mangadu Police Station, Mangadu.

WP No.10282 of 2013

SSI(CO)

CT(26/08/2021)

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

Hazarath Syed Sadik, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hazarath Syed Sadik, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Ramesh, Vs the Chairman

Krishnamoorthy Vs The General Manager

Sri.Prashant Prasad Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

M/S.Yessarex Vs The District Collector

Mrs. P.Uma @ Uma Maheswari, Vs the Branch Manager

E.Rajarethinam, Vs Secretary to the Govt. of