Allowed

Mohd. Saleem Ahmed v. Mohammed Akif Safvan

Telangana HC13 Sept 2023WA/878/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Writ Appeal, the High Court set aside a Single Judge order that allowed a challenge to the election of a Mosque's Managing Committee. The Court held that the Single Judge failed to issue notice or afford hearing to the appellants before passing the order, violating principles of natural justice, and thus allowed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 18.07.2023 allowing the writ petition and setting aside the election is set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge to hear parties including appellants and

Mohd. Saleem Ahmed Vs Mohammed Akif… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁷⁷ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI.ANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 878 OF 2023

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent^preferred against ttle order dated 18-07-2023 in W.P No. 3B834 of 2022 on the file of the High Court. Between:

¶9

Mohd. Saleem Ahmed, S/o late Nazeer Ahmed, Aged 59 years, Occ. Business and President Management Committee Jamia Mosque Moazampura, Mallepally Hyderabad.

¶10

S.A. Shareef, S/o S.Rangeen Sab, Aged 73 years, Occ. Business and Treasurer Management Committee Jamia Mosque Moazampura, Mallepally Hyderabad.

¶11

Akbar Shareef, S/o late Osman Shareef, Aged 43 years, Occ. Business and Member Management Committee Jamia Mosque Moazampura, Mallepally Hyderabad.

¶12

M.A. Mateen, S/o Mohd. Abdul Khaum, Aged 59 years, Occ. Business and Member Management Committee Jamia Mosque Moazampura, Mallepally Hyderabad.

¶13

Masood Junaidi, S/o late Mahmood Junaidi, Aged 44 years, Occ. Business and Member Management Commiftee Jamia Mosque Moazampura, Mallepally Hyderabad.

¶14

...APPELLANTS/3'd PARTTES AND

¶15

Mohammed Akif Satuan, S/o Mohammed Yousuf (late), Aged 48 years, Occ. Business, Fl/o H.No.1 1/3/694, New Mallepally, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶17

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Horne Department, Secretariat Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶18

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Pdncipal Secretary, to Govt Minority Welfare (Estt-l I ) Department, Secretariat Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶19

The Telangana State Waqf Board, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Haj House Nampally Hyderabad.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1,2 & 3

¶21

lA NO: 3 OF 2023

¶22

Petition under Section 1 51 CPC^praying that in t 1e cir(;urnstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl ntay be^pleased to suspend the Final Crder dated 1810712023 in W.P. Nl. 38ti3,U2022 of Learned Single Judge, Penc ing the above Writ Appeal in t1e inlerest of Justice as otherwise the Petitiorrers will suffer irreparable damage and h;lrrlship.

¶23

Counsel forthe Appellant: SRI SHAFATH AHMED KH,\N Counsel for the Res rondent No.1: SRI MIRZA NISAR ,\HMED BAIG Counsel for the Res rondent No.2: SRI M.ROOPENDEIi, GP F{)R HOME Counsel for the Res rondent No.3: SRI PATTIPAKA R/\M PF:ASAI), GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPl'

¶24

Counsel for the Res rondent No.4: SRI ABU AKRAM, :iC FOR TSll/B

¶25

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶26

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶27

AND

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶29

WRJT APPEAL No.878 of 2o23

¶30

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

¶31

Mr. Shafath Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the appellants.

¶32

Mr. Mirza Nisar Ahmed Baig, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶33

Mr. M.Roopender, learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent No.2.

¶34

Mr. Pattipaka Ram Prasad, learned Government Pleader for Socia1 Welfare Department lor respondent No.3.

¶35

Mr. Abu Akram, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4.

¶36

With consent of the parties, the matter is heard Iinaliy.

¶37

This intra court appeal has been filed against al order dated 18.07.2023^passed b1, learned Single Judge of

¶38

)

¶39

this Court, by which writ petition preferred bl,^r:spondent No.1 has ber:n allowed and the election^of the^{rlppe lants who} are the mentbers of the Managing Committee constituted^b5r the Wakf Bo,ird has been set aside.

¶40

Fa<:ts giving rise to filing of this app,:a1 briefly stated are trat respondent No.1/writ petitioner fi.ed a writ petition nanLely W.P.No.38834 of 2022, in wtrit:h validity of order dated 06.08.20'22 issued by Chiei Executive Oflicer, Telangana State Wakf Board was challenged Rr:spondent No.1/writ pttitioner did not implead the appellzrnts initially. However, sul>sequently on 2l .1O.2022, al appl catic,n seeking their impleaclment namely I.A.No.2 of 2022', was filed.

¶41

T-rt: aJoresaid application was all,rwed on 18.07.2023 and on the same day, learned Slinllle Judge passed a se )arate order dated l8.OZ .2ora3 ar d allowed the writ petition preferred by respondent No.1. The res;ult of the direction issrred by learned Single.Iudge is that the,:lection of the appellan[s who are the Managing Co:nmitlee vrhich was constituted t.y the Wakf Board has been se t asi<le.

¶42

::3::

¶43

lrarned counsel for the appellants has raised a similar contention that the impugned order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants.

¶44

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents have supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶45

B. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record of Writ Petition No.3BB34 of 2022.

¶46

From perusal of the record, it is evident that no notice of l.A.No.2 of 2022 was issued to the appellants and the same was allowed only on 18.07.2023. On the same day by a separate order, learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition preferred by respondent No. 1. Thus, from perusal of the record of the writ petition, it is apparent that neither any notice of the writ petition was issued to the appellants nor they were heard.

¶47

For the aforementioned reasons, impugned order 1n dated 18.07.2023 passed by learned Single Judge

¶48

I 4

¶49

W.P.No.38832. of 2022 cannot be sustainecL in ti.re el e of law.

¶50

It is accordingly set aside. Learned Singk: Judgr: srall hear the parties including the appellants and ttLerealte r shall deal rt ith the writ :etition.

¶51

Accordinglv, the Writ Appeal is allrr.,ed. There

¶52

sha.ll be no order as to costs

¶53

As a se,luel, miscellaneous applications pr'nCing, if any, shall stand closed.

¶54

SD/- B.S.CHIRANJEEVI

¶55

.,C,IN'I- REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (:]D

¶56

SE:CTION OFFICER

¶57

¶58

The Principz I Secretary, Home Department, Secretari€t iiaif abad, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

¶59

The Principz I Secretary, to Govt Minority Welfare (Estt-llt Dtrpartment, Secretariat !iaifabad, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

¶60

The Chief E <ecutive Officer,Telangana State WaH Boirr<1, Haj House Nampally H,derabad, Telangana State Waqf Board.

¶61

The Section Officer, Writ Non-Service Section, lligh Crurt for the State of Telangana, rt Hyderabad.

¶62

The Section Officer, Posting Section, High Cour. for the^:itale of Telangana, at Hyderabad.Hyderabad.

¶63

Telangana, at Hyderabad.Hyderabad.

¶64

1. One CC to SRI SHAFATH AHMED KHAN, Adv,rcate^'OPU'll

¶65

One CC to l)Rl MIRZA NISAR AHMED BAIG, Advocate [OF'UC] B. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Teiangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶66

Two CCs to GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE, High Court for th.: State of

¶67

Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶68

10.One CC to liRl ABU AKRAM, SC FOR TSWB [()PUCI

¶69

1 1 . Two CD Co cies

PSK. GJP ,-&

HIGH COURT

DATED:1310912023

JUDGMENT

WA.No.878 o12023

./,.:fGffi;
,/. t<
il') 11 lr[T 2m
.a
. ',..

¶76

ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT C;OSTS.

¶77

(((,
/
v .wur'
$hs
/'oB'

Mohd. Saleem Ahmed v. Mohammed Akif Safvan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Saleem Ahmed v. Mohammed Akif Safvan

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

Ravi Kiran Pulugam Vs The Indian Red Cross Society

Sara Khatija Vs The State of Telangana

Bhukya Tarani Vs Union of India.

Dr. G.Aravind Kumar Vs Union of India

Mr. G. Ramesh Kumar Vs Union of India

Rayala Venkata Durga Sai, Vs The Union of India