Dismissed

Khaja Mohiuddin v. Sri M. Abdul Hameed

Telangana HC25 Sept 2013CC/1044/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court considered a contempt petition alleging violation of directions regarding the administration of a wakf institution. The court found that elections were initiated and the Board had taken direct management prior to the filing of the contempt petition, dismissing the case for lack of willful disobedience.

What did the court decide?

No costs; miscellaneous petitions pending in the contempt case are closed.

Khaja Mohiuddin Vs Sri M. Abdul Hameed — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CONTEMPT CASE No.1044 of 2013

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This contempt case is filed alleging violation of directions issued by this Court in C.R.P.No.1845 of 2012, dated 05.11.2012.

¶4

The operative last paragraph of the said order reads as follows:

¶5

“The civil revision petition is accordingly disposed of. However, pending finalization of the new managing committee, the Wakf Board shall administer and manage the wakf institution, in question, by taking over the institution under direct management. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.”

¶6

In response to the notice before admission issued, on behalf of the first respondent the counter affidavit is filed by the present Chief Executive Officer stating that the first respondent in the contempt case is relieved of the post and the deponent of the counter affidavit is appointed as Chief Executive Officer.

¶7

Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit are extracted

¶8

hereunder:

¶9

“4. In reply to para 4 it is humbly submitted that consequent on receipt of order in revision petition the answering Respondent has issued office order in File No.18/Sec’bad/C/2012/Z1 dated: 1-2-2013 well before the filing of present contempt petition thereby directing the Chief Inspector Auditor (Wakfs) and Incharge of Task Force team to conduct elections for the constitution of

¶10

Managing committee and to submit report within one month. I submit that accordingly the above said officials issued notification in their File No.11/TF/Hyd/MMSection/Wakf/2012 dated: 13-2-2012 thereby requesting the Musallies of the Mosque to enroll the names in the list of Musallies by furnishing I.D. proof, Driving License, Bank Passport, Election I.D. Card, Ration card and Adhar Card and any I.D. issued by Government and public Sector companies duly attested by Imam of the said Mosque and objections if any and last date for the purpose was mentioned as 28-2-2013. However, due to some unavoidable circumstances, further process in the matter has been held up for which both the subordinate officials were reminded to expedite the process.

¶11

5. In reply to para 5 it is submitted that the averments urged in this para are totally false and baseless and as such denied. It is submitted that pursuant to the orders of the Hon’ble court the institution has already been taken into Direct management of the Board and the Inspector Auditor wakfs is managing the affairs and the Rent Controller of answering Respondent is collecting rents. The petitioner herein just to file the present contempt petition made out such averments by suppressing the facts.”

¶12

From the above, it is clearly shown that steps are already taken by the Chief Executive Officer for conduct of elections and the Board has already taken over the wakf institution and direct management. The process of election having been already initiated, the Chief Executive Officer is also required to ensure that the election process is completed as early as possible. However, since the steps required as per directions of this Court were taken, I do not find any willful disobedience on the part of the respondents and the Contempt Case is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending in this contempt case, if any, shall stand closed.

¶13

JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶14

25^th September, 2013

¶15

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶17

CONTEMPT CASE No.1044 of 2013

¶18

25^th September, 2013

¶19

Khaja Mohiuddin v. Sri M. Abdul Hameed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khaja Mohiuddin v. Sri M. Abdul Hameed

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

V.Sreerama Murthy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Champion Manufacturing Company Vs Mikroflo Filters Private Limited

D. Padmavathi Devi Vs M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India

M/s Pravesha Industries (P) Ltd., Vs M/s Cheminnova Remedies Private Limited

Vipin Kumar Jain, Vs Commissioner for Workmens Compensation and Asst. Commissioner

K.Mahender Reddy, Vs M/s.Kanosika Laboratories Ltd., (in Liquidation)