Disposed

Ayesha Hassan v. The State of Telangana, And Another

Telangana HC19 Feb 2020WP/1603/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the non-consideration of her representation for appointment as Muthawali. The court directed the respondents to consider the representation dated 7.12.2019 and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider the representation dated 7.12.2019 and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

Ayesha Hassan Vs The State of Telangana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶2

W.P.No.1603 OF 2020

¶3

ORDER

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶5

“to pass order or orders one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 for not considering the representation dated 07/12/2019 made by the petitioner for appointment as a Muthawaliship with regard to the properties i.e., Sunni or Shia House Moin Manzil No.5-9-1116, behind King Koti Road, admeasuring area 1984 Sq vards and its attached properties and to declare the action of respondents as illegal, arbitrary, against principles of the natural justice and against the provision of Waqf Act, 1995 and violation of Articles 300 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶6

Heard Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Abu Akram, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶7

The grievance of the petitioner is that though she is grand daughter of original wakif and surviving legal heir of Mohd.Moinuddin Hussain, the respondents are not considering her representation dated 7.12.2019 for appointment as Muthawali.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing

¶9

¶10

the respondents to consider the representation dated 7.12.2019

¶11

submitted by the petitioner.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent contended that since the representation submitted by the petitioner is pending with the respondents, the respondents would consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶13

Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 7.12.2019 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶14

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

¶15

closed.

¶16

________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶17

Date: 19.2.2020 rkk

¶18

Ayesha Hassan v. The State of Telangana, And Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayesha Hassan v. The State of Telangana, And Another

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

Sri Mailaram Vittu Gonda Vs The Telangana Wakf Board and another

Mukka Ramesh and 116 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Joseph Radhik Rallapati Vs Union of India and 2 others

Dibo Kongsley, Vs Government of India

Pyc Communications Vs Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

Ravi Kumar Vemulapalli Vs The Union of India and another