Allowed

Jamiat-e-Ahle Hadees Hyderabad and Secunderabad v. The State of Telangana and 5 others

Telangana HC21 Apr 2022WP/11294/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged police interference with a petitioner's Islamic Centre. The court addressed the police posting of a picket opposite the premises and the requirement for permissions to conduct religious activities, directing the police to remove the picket while allowing activities pending permissions. This disposition did not adopt a specific legal doctrine.

What did the court decide?

Respondent police directed not to post a police picket exactly opposite the petitioner's house. Petitioner to run religious activities after obtaining necessary permissions.

Jamiat-e-Ahle Hadees Hyderabad and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original J urisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 11294 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Jamiat-e-Ahle Hadees Hyderabad and Secunderabad,^(Reg.No.1 688/2004), Represented by its President, Mr. Shafeeq Alam Khan S/o. Rafeeq Alam Khan, Aged about 45 years, Occ. lslamic Scholar, RJo.H.No.13-5^-4311N55, Mahboob Colony, Karwan, Hyderabad, T.S.

¶8

.PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, T.S.

¶11

2 The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Police Commisionerate, Telangana State.

¶12

3 The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Malkajgi(i Zone, Rachakonda.

¶13

4 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ir/aikajgiri Division, Rachakonda.

¶14

5 The Station House Officer, Malka.jgiri Police Station.

¶15

6 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Represented by its^Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.28, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ any order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.s in interfering with^the Petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of their lslamic Center^property bearing bearing H.No.7-5514412 (old No. 7-55144) PTI No. 1280210703, consisting of Ground Plus Two Floors, on Plot No. 40, in Sy. No. 501 86 509 total admeasuring 178 Sq. Yards, covered under Block No. 7 of Malkajgiri Circle situated in Balasaraswathi Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State, and forcefully stopping private prayer meetings of Petitioner society members, without following any due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and^u ncon stitutional and consequently direct the Respondents herein to resist fronr interfering with the Petitioners

¶18

peaceful possession and enjoyment over the subject property and to desist from preventing private prayer meetings of the petiiioner socieiy members ln rre subject property except in accordance with law.

¶19

IANO:2O F 2021

¶20

Petition under Section 1 51 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit .^{fited in supportof} !l-.re Oefitioni^{tnl Hiff,} Court may be pteased pleased.the impread petitioner is the effected p"rtv oi the acts or'rne petiironei /respondent No r herein hence it is prayed tnat iiis'Honourror" "orri ,"f u-" pleased pass o-rders impreading T Naveen xumar, sto Late t Krishna aged about 36 years occ Generar Secre-tary Bara saraswathi Nagar corony essociatron ano Business R/o H No 7 - S8l1Bt2 Bala Saraswathi Hf aqii Colony I.4alkajgi; Rr;;; R^e^ddy District as Respondent No 7 in wp No r r zsa? 2021 and wprr,4p No 1 0f 2021 .

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CpC praying that in the ctrcumstances stated in ,1" ?tf]9u"I fited rn support of the peiitio;. ine Htgn Court mav be oteased ro drrect the Respondent No. 5 g5 6 to resist from inierfering ii,n" t;;;;;".; peaceful possession and enjoyment of therr rsramrc ceriter prop"rtv- o"lring izeOZrOzCi:,^,"oniirl,.,g oi bearing ,, No 7.55t44t2 (otd_No, 7-SSt44) rrt 't . Ground Prus Two Froors, on prot N-o.40, in Sy. rvo -sor-gs 509 totar ,o.n"rlr"rin"g 178^{sq Yards, covered underBrock} No^'7 of Markajgiri circre situated in P-"]:::ll.-:ll, ,^{Nasar,Hyderabad, retansa"; si;t"and to} desist from preventrng pnvate prayer congregation of the petitioner society members in the sub,'ect property without folowing the oue proceauie o-f taw, pending disposar of the above writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. p SHIV KUMAR

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents No.l to 5: Gp FOR HOME

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents No.6: SRl. CHATLA MADHU

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER.

¶27

THE HONORABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶28

W.P.No.1 1294 of 2021

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This writ petition is filed^{questioningthe actionof respondent} No.5 in interfering with the^{petitioner'speaceful possessionand} enjoyment of their lslamic^{Centre property bearingH.No.7-5514412(old} No.7-55l44), PTI No.1280210703,^{consistingof Ground+2floors on} Plot No.40 in Sy.Nos.501 and^{509 total admeasuring 178 sq. yards,} covered under Block No.7 of^{MalkaigiriCircle,situated in} Balasaraswathi Nagar, Hyderabad,^{and forcefullystopping private} prayer meetings of petitioner's society members,^{without following due} process of law, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶31

Heard learned counsel^{for the petitioner [Vlr. M. GovindReddy,} learned Assistant Government^{Pleaderfor Home for respondentNos.2} to 5, learned Standing Counsel^{for respondent No.6 Mr. ChatlaMadhu.} Respondent No.7 is impleaded as^{per the orders ofthis} Court in l.A.No.2 of 2O21 dated^{21 .O4.2O22 and Mr. B. Siva Prasad,} learned counsel is appearing for^{respondentNo.7.}

¶32

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner submits that the original} owner of the land had obtained^{building permission on 21 .03.2O17and} had constructed a house^{thereinand then,he has executeda} registered gift deed in favour^{of petitioner in accordancewith law with} an intention to make it a centre^{dedicated to lslamic study,research}

¶33

LK. J W.P No 11294^{of 2021}

¶34

and discussion for the upliftment of the society in general and the muslim community in specific. He submits that in the month of Ramadan, a number of people would assemble within the premises of the residential building to make use of its resources to study and discuss lslamic principles and when the time for prayer would approach, the petitioners along with their companions would often stand up, make a Jamat (Congregation) and within themselves would start to offer their obligatory prayers as it is a customary practice in lslam. Learned counsel submits that there is no complaint in this regard from any manner, but for the best reasons known to them, the^police are interfering with the religious activities of^petitioner in a highhanded manner and hence, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.

¶35

Respondent No.S has filed a detailed counter affidavit. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, while reiterating the said counter averments, submits that there were civil disputes between the locality people and the petitioner and the said locality^people tried to stop private prayer meetings of petitioner's society, due to which there was nuisance and law and order problem and in this connection, two criminal cases i..e, Cr.Nos.l69 and 445 of 2016 were'registered for the offences under Sections 447 and 427 IPC and those cases were ended up in compromise before the Lok Adalat. He further submits that another complaint was lodged stating that the petitioner society members are illegally constructed lslamic Centre and requested the police to take action and the police, after receiving the complaint, made

i l

I I

I i

w.p.rvo.r rzsq or ![il

¶41

GD entry, visited the site and directed the members of petitioner society and locality people not to create nuisance and arso suggested to approach the competent Court for redressal and thereafter disbursed them. He further submits that in view of the law and order problem within the said locality, the police have posted a police picket at the said site and except that, they are not interfering wlth any of the religious activities of the respondents.

¶42

Learned counsel for respondent No.7 submits that though the petitioner has obtained permiss.ion for residential purpose, they have started constructing Masjid by clubbing both the properties and when the same was questioned, the members of petitioner society were threatened them. He submits that questioning the inaction of the Municipality, the petitioner has already filed W.p.No.44 1lS of 2O18 and the same is pending for consideration before this Court. He further submits that the petitioner has not obtained permission for conducting the religious activities in the said house and huge number of people are assembling in the said house and creating problem to the residents of the locality. He submits that the petitioner, who has obtained permission for the purpose of residential purpose, cannot carry out any activities in the said premises.

¶43

Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the entire material on record. ln this case, admittedly, the original owner had obtained permission for construction of residential house and this

¶44

¶45

LK, J W.P.No.11294 of 202'l

¶46

¶47

¶48

particular property has been^{specifically donatedto petitioner for} conducting religious^{activities in the saidpremises. lt is also a fact that} the premises is^{not used for residentialpurpose, but it is used for} running an lslamic^{Centre.Accordingto the learned counsel for the} petitioner, no permission is^{required for running religious activitiesin} the^{premises.The stand of the respondent-police is that they are not} interferingwithanyofthepetitioner'sactivities,butinviewofthe|aw and order^{problem, they have posted a police picket therein'ln} response to the^{same, learned counselfor the petitioner submitsthat} as police^picket is^{posted exactly opposite to its house'whichis} causing inconvenience^{to the members of petitioner society to enter} into the said^premises.

¶49

ln the facts and^{circumstances,the Writ Petition is disposedof'} directing the respondent-police^{not to post a police picketexactly} opposite to the^{house of petitionerand the petitioner can run the} religious activities in the^{said premisesafter obtainingnecessary} permissions, if any, from the authorities^{concemed' No order as to} costs.

¶50

B Miscellaneous^{petitions,if any pending in thiswrit petition'shall}

stand closed.

//TRUE^COPY//

To, The Principal^{Secretary, HomeDepartment' Secretariat' State of Telangana'} Hyderabad,^T.S. 2 The Commissioner^{of Police' Rachakonda Police Commisionerate'Telangana}

,=i\

The Deputy Commissioner^{of Police, MalkajgiriZone, Rachakonda'}

¶60

4.TheAssistantCommissionerofPolice,MalkajgiriDivision,Rachakonda'

¶61

The Station House Officer,^{Malkajgiri PoliceStation'}

¶62

tlt

¶63

The Greater Hyderabad^{tl4unicipalCorporation, Representedby its Deputy} Commissioner, Circle No.28,^{Malkajgiri, Hyderabad'}

¶64

7 One CC to SRl. P SHIV^{KUMARAdvocate} [OPUC]

¶65

One CC to Sri. Chatla^Madhu [OPUC]

¶66

g.TwoCCstoGPFORHOME,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶67

Two CD CoPies

¶68

1 1 . One Spare CoPY

¶69

d. N--

1^{I</sup> $ )}

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 10412022

ORDER

AE STara.
2 2 JUL 2O?? i)
.)

¶75

WP.No.11294 of 2021

¶76

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶77

WITHOUT COSTS

¶78

t>
01 {)
r3
lt V),/

Jamiat-e-Ahle Hadees Hyderabad and Secunderabad v. The State of Telangana and 5 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamiat-e-Ahle Hadees Hyderabad and Secunderabad v. The State of Telangana and 5 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

M/s. Csk Realtors Limited Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Dhravath Lakshmi Banjara Vs the State of Telangana

Gaddam Anil Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Heera Lal Bhai Patel Vs The State of Telangana

Mostafa Askari Hemat Vs The Government of Telangana and another

Atakapuram Srivalli Vs The State of Telangana