Disposed

Syyed Faisuddin v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Telangana HC12 Aug 2021WP/15855/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition by directing the Wakf Board to continue the petitioner's services as a contractor for collecting offerings from a Dargah, subject to the petitioner accepting a 15% increase in the contract value, pending the outcome of a new tender process.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to pay 15% more than the previous contract amount; respondent Board shall continue petitioner's services as contractor till a new tender is floated.

Syyed Faisuddin Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE S1 -^{AT HYDE#JEDOFTELANGANA} (Dpectat Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THUS:,?TY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND rWrruiY i]NE""

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶5

Between:

¶6

WRIT P ETITI ON NO :1585 oF 2021

¶7

Syyed Faisuddin :lo.,gyyeg, lqTin Uddin, Age. 41 years. Occ. Business 5l?,["],t"J3;r:'S,:g::i:^{Er"i'i'r"l' ,,Eltil'""' r'ro rd,-rainJ*i} L?tg,oa,

¶8

AND ...PETITIONER

¶9

The State of Telanoana, Rep. by its principal Secretary, Minority Welfare p.e nq.1me nt, Te ta n! a na' S eir"ir#i ji.'riroEiri#

¶10

^ z rne reranqana state wakf Board, Reri. by its crriet Executive officer, office at Haj House, 1Sr Ftoor, nazacrt Mihxii-opi.'i,r;iii-cr;;;;,''N;;;;jty,, "',,"" Hyderabad.

¶11

3 The-Terangana state wakf Board, Rep. by its chairman, office at Hai House 1st Ftoor, Razack Manxit, opp. pJorii-ciid;;, N;rp;l;, tii;;;U;]^,,""*

¶12

The tnspector Auditor wikf,' nungi R"ddy-di.tiilt, tiio6iub;;.'--""

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High colrt ina"y o" pr"rr"a to issue a writ, order or direction more parlicuraily one in the nature of writ of Mandamus .declaring the action of Respondent No. 2 and 3 in not considering the representation of the Petitioner dated 23.06.2021 for continuing him as contractor in respect of Dargah Hazrath Jahangir peeran (R.H,) situated at lnmulnarva (V), Kothur [V1andal, Ranga Reddy District for a further period of 6 months as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 19 and 21 of the constitution of lndia and the principles of natural justice.

¶15

lA NO:¹ OF 2021

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 23.06.2021 for cbntinuing him as Contractor in respect of Dargah Hazrath Jahangir Peeran (R.H.) situated at lnmulnarva (V), Kothur lvlandal, Ranga Reddy District pending disposal of Writ Petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI KIRAN PALAKURTHI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SOCIAL^WELFARE Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.2 to 4: SRI^{ABU AKRAM,} SC FOR TS WAKF BOARD

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE P'NAVEENRAO}

¶20

WIUT PE^{TITION No.158 55of 2O2L}

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Thlsq,ritpe'titionisfiledprayingtograntthefollowingreliel

¶23

"...to issue^{a writ, order or directionmoreparticularlyone in the} ,rutr." of Wrrt^{of Mandamus declaringthe action} -of.^Respondent il;.;';rJ^g i.^{.,ot considering the representation of the Pet'itioner} J^i.Jia.oo.:roz^{1 for continriing him as contractorin respectof} i?."f,^{"HLi.,f-l JahangirPeeran(R H) situated} .at^Inmulnarva Ivr ?".r.ru Mandal, Ranla^{ReddyDistrict fora furtherperiod of 6} ;;";; ;; ir:.grr u.uit.u'.v^{and violative of Art 19 and 21 of rhe} tlo"Jiti."^{oil.rdiaand the principles of naturaljusticeandto} pass such other order'.,."

¶24

Heard Sri Kiran Palakurthi,^{learned counsel forthe} petitioner, iearrred Government^{PleaderforSocial Welfare} appearing for respondent No.l^{and Sri Abu Akram, learned} Standing Counsr:l appearing for respondents^{2 to 4.}

¶25

Petitioner was awarded contract for collection of 17 items of offerings in Darglah Hazrath Jahangir Peeran (R.H) for an amount of Rs. 1,50,00,0Ct0/ - (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs only). The period of contract awarded to petitioner expired on 11.08.2021.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to prevailing pandemic situation and the ban imposed on opening of Dargahs, there were no visitors to the Dargah and therefore, petitioner has ir:Lcurred huge 1oss. He further submits that even though fresh te:nder notilication was floated, but there was no response and e.s of now, no new contractor is selected. He therefore, submits that petitioner may be permitted to continue to work as contractor for collecting 17 items of offerings given by the devotees for further period.

¶27

J-

¶28

¶29

Learned Standing Counsel for the Wakf Board submits that even though tender notification was floated, but it is not finalized as there was no response and agrees for continuing the petitioner, provided he accepts for increaslng the tender value by atleast 15%.

¶30

6, Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 15% may be on higher side and petitioner is willing to increase the volume of amount by LOV". The amount collected in this manner is required to be utiiised for providing amenities to the devotees who visit the Dargah. Therefore, I deem it reasonable to direct the^petitioner to pay 15olo more than agreed amount for the previous contract period. Therefore, subject to petitioner paying 15% more than the amount agreed for the previous contract^period, the respondentBoard shall continue the services of^petitioner as contractor till a new tender is floated and a new contractor is selected. It^is open to the petitioner to participate in the tender^process as and^when tender notification is issued.

¶31

7 . With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶32

SD/.K.ONESIM

¶33

//TRUE COPY/I

¶34

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \V,

¶35

SECTION OFFICER

¶36

To,

¶37

The Principal Secretary,^{IVinority Welfare Department, State of Telangana'} Telanoana Secretariat. Hvderabad.

¶38

f5JC"nret^{gxecutiveOffic'er,TelanganaStateWakf Board, Officeat Haj House,} iSi etoor, Razack Manxil, Opp.^{Public Garden, Nampally,Hyderabad-} -.

¶39

The Chaiiman, Telangana^{StateWakf Board, Office at Haj.House,1st I-loor'} Raiack Manxil, Opp. Public^{Garden, Nampally,Hyd.erabad.}

¶40

4 The lnsoector Auclitor^{Wakf, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad} 5 One CC to Sri Kiran Palakurthi,^Advocate [OPUC] 6 iwo CCs to GP for Social^{Welfare,HighCourt for the State of Telangana} at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶41

z. One'CC io Sri^{AUu At<ram, SC for TS WakfBoard,Advocate[OPUC]} 8. Two CD CoPies

¶42

OgeSPare Coov

"^€

HIGH^COURT

DATED:12108/2021

ORDER

WP.No.'t5855^{of 2021}

¶48

.(dg S lAi e o
,<br>o,J.) 16 AuG20t1 r)

(,P
-{_

¶49

DISPOSING^{OF THE \T/P} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶50

^.f

Syyed Faisuddin v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syyed Faisuddin v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

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

B.Rajavardhan Reddy Vs State of Telangana

V.S.Ranga Raju Vs State of Telangana

Erukula Balaiah and another Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

J.Ananth Rao Vs The State of Telangana and 17 others

Mohd Abid Hussain Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Pinki Roy Vs The State of Telangana