Disposed

Mohd Ahsan Uz Zama Qureshi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Jun 2022WP/25922/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition filed by a Qazi challenging the inaction of the State in appointing him for leftover localities. The Court directed the Principal Secretary to pass orders within eight weeks of putting the second respondent on notice.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent to pass necessary orders within eight weeks of the date of the order, after putting the second respondent on notice and affording an opportunity of hearing.

Mohd Ahsan Uz Zama Qureshi Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

{

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶4

WEDNESDAY, ..__TWOTHOUSANDANDTWENTYTWO'^{THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE A' ABHISHEKREDDY}

¶7

WRIT P ETITI^{ON NO:259220F2022}

¶8

Betwee n:

¶9

Mohd Ahsa nU H.No. 20-2472,^z P-l"i'N;.l6rHrssainiAla-m,Hyderabad^{Zama Qureshi, S/o Aged about 50. years' Occ} ...pE,TtoNER^{Qazi R/o}

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of^{Telangana, Rep'by its PrincipalSecretary'Minority welfare} ii'Jtiiiiij"partmen"t, 9e.?..:lX?iP3lil'lgi;[ilX",iilf!;"1qry*0^,41,jid.1i^^ 'F!?'"'HJIiBiffi '"TTI##t,'f:,,1Hffi :X,i,g,fu?tv:n,irilrrru"zo' Hyderabad.

¶12

(Resoondent No' 2 is impleaded^{as per Court Orderdated 22'06'2022in} i.n.ub.z^oI 2022) ...REsPoNoENrs

¶13

Petition under^{Article226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiledtherewith'the High Court maybe} pleasedtoissueanappropriateWrit'OrderorDirectionmoreparticularlyonein thenatureofWritofMandamusdeclaringtheinactionoftherespondenthereinin not^{passingorders in pursuance of the Report of the DistrictCollector} dl.loll2l2o2laSbeingillegal,arbitrary,unconstitutionalandconsequentlydirect therespondenttoforthwithpassordersinpursuanceoftheReportoftheDistrict tn respect of^the Collector^{dl.1Ol12t2O21assigning AdditionalCharge} localities/areas^{as per AnnexureC}

¶14

IA NO: 10F 2022 Petition under Section 151^{CPC prayingthatin the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit^{firedin support of the petition, the High court may be preasedto direct}

¶15

¶16

the respondent^{to consider and passorders pursuantto the Report of the District} Collector^{dl.1ll12t2l21' pending disposalof the writ petition}

¶17

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRI P' PANDU RANGAREDDY}

¶18

counsel^{for RespondentNo' 1: GP FOR soclALWELFARE}

¶19

Counsel^{for Respondent No' 2:SRl'sharifAhmedKhan}

¶20

The Court^{made the following: ORDER}

I I

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.25922 of 2022

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶28

Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for respondent No.1, and Sri Shafath Ahmed Khan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. With their consent, the present Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

¶29

Seeking to declare the inaction of the respondent No. 1 in not passing orders in pursuance of the Report of the District Collector, Hyderabad, dated 10.12.2021, as illegal and arbitrary, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶30

¶31

It is the case of the petitioner that he has been rendering the services as Qazi for the last 23 years. That he has submitted a representation to the Government seeking to permit him to discharge the functions of Qazi in respect of the leftover localities of Mustaidpura Zone. Pursuant to the said representation, the Government has sought remarks/ recommendations from the District Collector, Hyderabad, for considering the case of the petitioner. The District Collector, Hyderabad, after conducting enquiry had submitted Report/ Recommendations to the respondent No. 1 uide communication dated 1O.12.2021. But, so

far, the respondent No.t has not passed any orders. Hence, this writ petition.

¶37

Having regard to the fact that rhe Districi Collector, Hyderabad, has already sent the Report to the respondent No. 1 in December, 202 1, without going into the merits or demerits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No. 1 to pass necessary orders, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, duly putting the respondent No.2 herein on notice, affording him an opportunity of filing objections, and also affording the parties an opportuniry of hearing. It is made clear that the respondent No.l shall take into consideration the objections, if any, liled by the respondent No.2 or any other person opposing the appointment of the petitioner as Qazi.

¶38

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, sha11

¶39

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

SD/-I,NAGALAKSHMI DEPUTY^REGISTRAR

¶41

,TRUE COPY//

¶42

SECTION^OFFICER

¶43

To.'-'t. Th" Principal Secretary, Minority welfare (Estt-ll) Department' State of

¶44

Telanoana Secretariat^{Buildings, Hyderaoao} . , o;;'i;'i; 5;-P^{%"?;R;nsd ieodv Advocate [oPUC]} 5. i;; dc.io^{Op ror'EiiiurrftJtfare, iligh Court fbr the State of Telansana'} IOUTI 4. iwo CD CoPies 5. One Spare^CoPY MBC sw,"--

¶45

HIGH COURT

¶46

DATEDT 2210612022

¶47

d S 14 I €
o 3
(
F I
oo:e 0 7 JUL 2[22 I
4
o
PA,1

¶48

ORDER

¶49

WP.No.25922^{ot 2022}

¶50

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION}

¶51

o
a 1 -'Y''/

¶52

WITHOUT^COSTS

Mohd Ahsan Uz Zama Qureshi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Ahsan Uz Zama Qureshi v. The State of Telangana

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

Smt. Gadde Vijaya Bharathi Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited

Chirumalilla Bhanu Prasad Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited

K. Rama Vs The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force)

Ss Constructions Vs Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd.

Veluvarthi Narsimha and 7 others Vs TheTelangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation and Another

Smt. a. Shobha Rani Vs The State of Telangana