Disposed

Syed Khader Mohiuddin S/o Syed Mohammed Hussain v. The Govt of a.P.Minority Welfare Department

Telangana HC18 Jul 2014WP/16211/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition alleging inaction regarding the petitioner's recognition as a hereditary Mujawar. It directed the respondents to take an appropriate decision within two months of the Board's constitution.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to take an appropriate decision in the matter expeditiously within two months from the date of the constitution of the Board.

Syed Khader Mohiuddin S/o Syed Mohammed Hussain… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 16211 of 2014

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

Syed Khader Mohiuddin

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶15

2. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that he is entitled to be recognised as a hereditary Mujawar of Dargah Hazrath Jahangir Peeran at Immulanarava Village. The application of the petitioner for recognition, as such, appears to be pending with the board for quite sometime and in spite of directions of this court in W.P.No.14809 of 2013, dated 15.03.2013, so far no orders are passed. It appears from the record that an enquiry was already conducted and a report dated 01.05.2013 was already submitted to the

¶16

Board by the Deputy Secretary-cum-Enquiry Officer of the Board. However, decision on that issue is still awaited. Hence, alleging inaction petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶17

3. Learned Standing Counsel states that, at the moment since Board is not continuing, a decision on this matter is necessary to be taken by the Board and though the reports necessary are readily available with the Board, appropriate decision will be taken as and when the Board is constituted.

¶18

4. In view of the earlier order of this court in W.P.No.14809 of 2013, dated 15.05.2013, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to take appropriate decision in the matter expeditiously at least within two months from the date of constitution of the Board.

¶19

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶21

July 18, 2014 LMV

Syed Khader Mohiuddin S/o Syed Mohammed Hussain v. The Govt of a.P.Minority Welfare Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Khader Mohiuddin S/o Syed Mohammed Hussain v. The Govt of a.P.Minority Welfare Department

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

Syed Zakir Hussain, S/o Late Syed Yousuf Hussain, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tatavarthi Pullaiah Vs Mr. Neelisetti NArasimha Rao

J.Bala Naveena, aged about 30 years, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kandrathi Sambasiva Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Madasu RavindraBabu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M. Muralidhara Rao, Vs Government of Telangana