Writ petition challenging inaction on a representation submitted by a school society. The Court did not deem it necessary to keep the matter pending and instead discharged the petitioner.
Petitioner permitted to submit fresh representation within two weeks; respondent authority directed to act within two months of submission.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[32s6 j
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 13640 OF 2019
Between:
[,,ladarsa Darul Uloom Jamia, Alamgir IrIasjid, Eidgah Gutla Begumpet, Madhapur, Rangareddy District, Rep. by its President Md. Yaseen, S/o. Late Umed Ali, Aged about.55years, Occ. Service, R/o. H. No.180, N R R Puram, Site - lll, Borabanda, Hyderabad.
..,PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
,
Petition under Article 226 of the Constrtution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the inaction of the Respondent authorities particularly the respondent No.2 authority in acting on the representation submitted by the petitloner association dt.17-06-2019 as illegal, arb,trary, unlawful and against the principles of naturaljustice and consequentially drrect the respondent authorities to act on the representation submitted by the petitioners dt.17-06-2019 and not to permit the respondent No.3 and 4 to undertake the any construction or establishment of school at thepremises
bearing Alanrgir Masjid, Eidgah Gutla Begumpet, Madhapur, Rangareddy District.
lA NO: 1 OF 2019
Petition unde 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 respondelt authorities to act on the representation submitted by the petitioners dl. 17-( 6-2019 and not to permit the respondent No. 3 & 4 to undertake the any construction or establishment of school ai thepremises bearing Alamgir l lasjid, Eidgalr Gutla Begumpet, Madhapur, Rangareddy District.
Counsel for the Pe'itioner: SRI M.SALEEM Counsel for the Re;pondent No.1: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for the Re;pondent No.2: SRI M.A.MUJEEB, SC FOR WAQF BOARD Counsel forthe Re;pondent No.4: SRI M.BASITH ALI YAVAR Counsel for the Respondent No.3: ---
The Court made th: following: ORDER
I I
/
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
WRIT PtrTITiON NO.13640 OF 2019
ORDER:
The grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that the petitioner herein is a registered socie.ty running a school with the permission of the Telangana State Wakf Board with the objective of imparting education of academic and also promoting moral and physical education etc. However, adjacent to the educational institution of the petitioner, the respondents 3 and 4 are taking up certain activities and thereby, causing disturbance to the institution run by the petitioner. Under those circumstances, the petitioner claims to have submitted representation daLed 22.O4.2O19 before the second respondent and also claims to have submitted a complaint before the Commissioner of Police on 17.06.2019 requesting them to take appropriate action against the respondbnts 3 and 4 herein. However, there was no action taken on the said representations by the second respondent as well as the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad and hence, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 2. No counter afhdavit is {iled in the matter and the matter has been adjourned from time to time for filing counter.
') TNSK,J r.v.P.Iio. 13540 0F 2019
4 . Howevr:r, taking into consideration the representations that were sa d to have been submitted b5' the petitioner are of the year 2019 , the Writ Petition is dispose d of permitting the petitioner tr submit a fresh representation ventilating its grievance be lore the second respondent rvithin a period of two (2) week-" frr,m the date of receipt of a copy of tl-ris order. On submissiorr, rf such representation, the second respondent shall take immed iate action on the said representation within a period of t vo (2) months from the datc oi submission of representati( )n by the petitioner.
There shall be no order as to costs. Miscelianeous applications, if any, pending shall stand closcd.
sD/- c. PRAVEEN KVMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// I a) SECTION OFFICER
To
SK." Ls,+._.-
HIGH COURT
DATED:23112,2022
ORDER
WP.No.13640 of 2019
rHE sre r('
I
r) :l [ 0E[ ?022
,t
DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COIJTS.
)o
M}
,,4 ?/V,
<br>7b
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should discharge the petitioner to submit a fresh representation regarding construction activities causing disturbance to an educational institution.
Whether the respondent authorities are directed to act upon the petitioner's representation within a specified period.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Darul Uloom Jamia, Alamgir IrIasjid
State of Telangana
Telangana State Waqf Board
Nawaz Ahmed Khan
Mohammed Riyaz
Mummineni Sudheer Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
