Allowed

Haji K.M. Jalaludeen v. the Chief Secretary

Madras HC2 Dec 2021WP(MD)/4699/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge justice issued a writ of mandamus under Article 226 directing the Chief Executive Officer of Tamil Nadu Wakf Board to consider a petitioner's representation lodged on 18.01.2016 against a third respondent. The matter was disposed of with a directive to decide within three months.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus directed the fourth respondent to consider the representation dated 18.01.2016 and pass orders within three months.

Haji K.M. Jalaludeen Vs the Chief Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD) No.4699 of 2016

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.12.2021 CORAM

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR W.P(MD) No.4699 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD)No.4240 of 2016

¶4

Haji K.M.Jalaludeen,

¶5

Jamath President, Puthumanai Muhallah Masjithe Mubarak Palli, Jumma Pallivasal, Tenkasi. ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.The Chief Secretary, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Vallal Seethakathi Nagar, Chennai.

¶8

2.The Superintendent of Wakf Board, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Tirunelveli.

¶9

3.Mr.Abdul Jalil, The Secretary, Puthumanai Muhallah Masjithe Mubarak Palli, Jumma Pallivasal, Tenkasi.

¶10

4.The Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Vallal Seethakathi Nagar, Chennai.

¶11

(R4 suo-motu impleaded as per order of this Court dated 02.12.2021) ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.01.2016 to take appropriate action against the respondent No.2 in the light of the scheme of the petitioner's Jamath.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.G.Chandrasekar, for R1, R2 & R4 No Appearance for R3

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

In the captioned writ petition a public wakf which goes by the name 'Puthumani Muhallah Masjithe Mubarak Palli' (hereinafter 'said wakf' for the sake of convenience and clarity) is the nucleus.

¶17

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

¶18

1/6

¶19

W.P(MD) No.4699 of 2016

¶20

Writ petitioner who was then President of said wakf has sent a representation dated 18.01.2016 to second respondent making certain allegations against the third respondent who was the secretary of administration committee of said wakf. The simple prayer in the writ petition is to mandamus the respondent to consider writ petitioner's representation dated 18.01.2016. To be noted, scanned reproduction of 18.01.2016 representation as placed before me along with postal receipts and postal acknowledgement cards is as follows:

¶21

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

¶22

2/6

¶23

W.P(MD) No.4699 of 2016

¶24

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

¶25

3/6

¶26

W.P(MD) No.4699 of 2016

¶27

Mr.G.Chandrasekar, learned counsel for Tamil Nadu Wakf Board who is before me on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 submits that the tenure of office of the writ petitioner and the third respondent has since elapsed and that it elapsed in 2019. There is no disputation or disagreement that the tenure of office (qua said wakf) of the writ petitioner and the third respondent elapsed in 2019. Be that as it may, this Court is also informed that the allegations have been looked into and a report has been prepared. I do not want to venture further into this aspect of the matter on hand owing to the simple prayer on which captioned writ petition now turns. Before I deal with the simple prayer, there are two errors in the case file which need to be adverted to. The first respondent is described as Chief Secretary, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board. This has to read as Chief Executive Officer of Tamil Nadu Wakf Board. This https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court is also informed that the Chief Executive Officer of Tamil

¶28

4/6

¶29

W.P(MD) No.4699 of 2016

¶30

Nadu Wakf Board is the competent authority to consider and make orders qua the writ petitioner's representation. Therefore, the Chief Executive Officer of Tamil Nadu Wakf Board is added as fourth respondent. Registry to carry out necessary and consequential amendments in the case file as well as the order copy before uploading / issuing the copy of the order / despatching the same to parties concerned. Mr.G.Chandrasekar, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of fourth respondent. The other error is the representation talks about allegation against the second respondent whereas it should read as third respondent.

¶31

One other factor of relevance is, third respondent has been duly served and the name of third respondent is shown in the cause list but there is no representation. This Court is informed that third respondent has not chosen to enter appearance through a counsel.

¶32

In the light of the narrative thus for, captioned writ petition is disposed of with a simple directive to the impleaded fourth respondent to consider the writ petitioner's aforementioned representation dated 18.01.2016 on its own merits, in accordance with law, make orders as expeditiously as his business would permit and in any event within three months from today i.e., on or before 02.03.2022. Though obvious it is made clear that I have not expressed any view or opinion on the merits of the matter and all questions are left open to be decided by the fourth respondent. It is desirable for the fourth respondent to put the third respondent on notice before making such order though the third respondent has not chosen to come before this Court.

¶33

6.This writ petition is disposed of on above terms. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petition is also disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶35

// True Copy //

¶36

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶37

vsm

¶38

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

¶39

5/6

¶40

W.P(MD) No.4699 of 2016

¶41

¶42

1.The Chief Secretary, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Vallal Seethakathi Nagar, Chennai. 2.The Superintendent of Wakf Board, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Tirunelveli. 3.The Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Vallal Seethakathi Nagar, Chennai.

¶43

+1 CC to M/s.G.CHANDRASEKAR, Advocate (SR-37445[F] dated 06/12/2021)

¶44

W.P(MD)No.4699 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD)No.4240 of 2016 02.12.2021

¶45

MA (CO)

¶46

GC(05.01.2022) 6P 5C

¶47

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

¶48

6/6

Haji K.M. Jalaludeen v. the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haji K.M. Jalaludeen v. the Chief Secretary

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/S.Jasmine Towels Private Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Arasan Beedi Co. Ltd., Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Chinnupoosari Vs the Joint Commissioner

M/S.Sri Vinayaga Aqua Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

R.Malaichamy, Vs Arulmigu Kallalagar

Sri Ammaluammal @ Vs the Joint Commisssioner