Disposed

S.a.Karimullah, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC17 Dec 2012PIL/245/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, a petitioner challenged the action of the Wakf Board and the constitution of a managing committee for a historical mosque in Nandyal, alleging illegal demolition. The court, noting an enquiry report and the petitioner's delay, held no further order was needed but directed the Board to supervise the committee's management.

What did the court decide?

No further order passed; directed the 2nd respondent Board to monitor the managing committee.

S.a.Karimullah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

Public Interest Litigation No.245 of 2012

¶3

DATED:17.12.2012

¶4

Between: Syed Abdul Karimullah And

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Secretary to Government, Minorities Welfare (Wakf) Department, Hyderabad and others.

¶7

…. Respondents

¶8

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶9

Public Interest Litigation No.245 of 2012

¶10

Order: (per the Hon’ble Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶11

Assailing the inaction of the 2^nd respondent-Board in not protecting the notified historical Jamia Mosque situated at Nandyal Town, Kurnool District, the petitioner filed this Public Interest Litigation. A consequential direction was also sought to set aside the proceedings F. No. 10539/C/KNL/2011Z.V, dated 18.5.2012 issued by the 2^nd respondent-Board, through which the 2^nd respondent constituted the 4^th respondent-managing committee to manage the affairs of the Mosque in question.

¶12

According to the petitioner, the mosque in question is of 400 years old and it was constructed during the regime of Qutub Shahi Dynasty and is having a great historical significance. Petitioner alleges that the 4^th respondent-Committee without obtaining any permission from respondent Nos. 2 and 3, has demolished the mosque in question illegally. Hence, the petitioner filed the present petition.

¶13

While denying the allegations of the petitioner, respondent No.2 has filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that an Enquiry Officer was appointed by the Wakf Board to conduct enquiry into the matter, who after conducting enquiry, submitted his report holding that since the mosque in question was in dilapidated condition and not accommodating sufficient number of Musallies, the 4^th respondent reconstructed the same without the permission and sanction of the Board. It is further stated that the mosque in question was reconstructed in the year 2004 itself and the petitioner filed the present petition in the year 2012, i.e., after a period of more than eight years after the mosque was reconstructed. It is further stated that pursuant to the report of the Inspector Auditor, Wakfs and upon his recommendation, the 2^nd respondent constituted the 4^th respondent-Managing Committee. It is further stated that the allegations with regard to mis-management of the Mosque in question have already been enquired into by the Enquiry Officer and nothing was found against the 4^th respondent.

¶14

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶15

Admittedly, the petitioner did not question the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer against the 4^th respondent at that point of time. But, on the other hand, the petitioner filed the present Public Interest Litigation only after the 4^th respondent-Committee was constituted to manage the affairs of the mosque in question.

¶16

While taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the

¶17

case and in view of the averments made by the 2^nd respondent in the counter affidavit, we do not think that any further order can be passed in this petition. However, we only direct the 2^nd respondent-Board also to look into the matter and if it finds that the 4^th respondent-committee is not managing the affairs of the mosque in question properly, then the 2^nd respondent-Board shall take necessary steps in the matter in accordance with law.

¶18

The Public Interest Litigation is accordingly disposed of.

¶19

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, HCJ

¶20

______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J

¶21

17.12.2012 pnb

S.a.Karimullah, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.a.Karimullah, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Dargah Hzt. Moula Taleem Mastan (Rh), Vs Chief Executive Officer

Sri. M.Gopal, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

All India Forward Block Pary Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Pragathi Welfare Association, Vs The Government of Ap., rep. by its

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

S. Malleswara Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

B. Ram Mohana Reddy, Vs The Principal Secretary

N. Mohan Kumar Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh