Dismissed

Syed Maqdoom Hussain v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Jul 2023WP/15939/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the inaction of the District Registrar in considering society registration applications. The Court held that authorities cannot delay indefinitely and directed the Registrar to dispose of the pending applications within six weeks, either by registering or rejecting with reasons.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 3 to consider the application for registration of the society and complete the exercise, by way of registration or rejection with reasons, within six weeks.

Syed Maqdoom Hussain Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[^3209l

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD (Speciat Oreinal Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CH]LLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶7

WRIT PET TION NO:159 39 0F 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Syed Maqdoom Hussain, S/o. Syed Sahab Hussaini Mulla. T.S-500008.Rl/o. H. No.9-4-1 3Sl NgB,^Tolichowki, Ragrfrdva Cotony, CofcoirJJ, ivO";;il;:

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The Depa;lxf,, Sll?:fl?iffii,"[B?o^{bv its Principarsecretary'Revenue}

¶13

2 The Registration and Stamps Department, State of Telangana, Hyderabad (South).

¶14

3 H:r,?tl",ir#?gf"jltoo[{g:."b"0^{(south),H No 8-3-166/s/2,r r-Froor,}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High cJurt may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the inaction of ttre respondents No.3 in not considering the apprication / representation dated- 1610312023 and 1710612023 and not registering the petitioners society in the name and styre of "Khanqah-E-sarwar-E-Aaram Management Committee" with address H.No.10_2-44818, Asif Nagar, Anluman, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad-s0o02g is iilegar, arbitrary and unconstitutionar and violative of principles of Natural Justice.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondent No.3 forthwith to register the petitioner,s society in the name and style of "Khanqah-E-Sarwar-E-Aaram Management committee-, pending disposal of the Writ petition.

¶19

I I I l i I.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioners:^{SRI BHASKAR'REP-FOR} SRI R.CHANDRASHEKAR^REDDY

¶21

Counsel for the^{Respondents:SRIB.DILEEP KUMAR,} AGP FOR STAMPS^{AND REGISTRATION}

¶22

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶23

HOI,PBLE Dr- JIISTICE CHILLAKT R SUMALATIIA

¶24

WRIT PETITION No. 15939 of 2023

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard Sri Bhaskar, learned counsel, who argued on behalf of Sri R-Chandrashekar Reddy, learned counsel on record for the petitioner, as well as Sri B.Dileep Kumar, learned Assistant Government pleader for Stamps and Registration, who is representing respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. This Writ Petition is fiIed seeking the Court to issue a writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of respondent No.3 i.e., the District Registrar, Hyderabad, in considering the applications, dated 16.3.2023 and 17.6.2023, and in registering the petitioner,s society, as illegal and unco n stitu tion al.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner presented an application for registration of society in the name and style "Khanqah-E-Sarwar_E_Aalam", but it was not considered and the applications, dated 16.3.2023 and L7.6.2023, are kept pending.

¶28

On the other hand, Sri B.Dileep Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, on written instructions, states that there is inter se dispute between the mem.bers and no two applications_ fo1

¶29

//'

¶30

¶31

DT CSL, J ttt.P.No.l5939 of 2023

¶32

registration of society <sup>iith identical narnes can be considered and therefore, both the applications are kept^pendingald they will be disposed of.

¶33

The Registering Authority has no^power to keep^the application frled for registration pending for months^and yea-rs together. The Registering Authority is bound^to consider the application, and thereafter, to entertain it^{or to} reject the application by furnishing^{reasons. Therefore, this} Court is of the view that the public authority^is required^{to be} directed to perform its dutl' as^per the^{mandate of law.} 6. Hence, this Writ Petition is disposed of^{with the} following direction:-

¶34

Respondent No.3-Drstrict Registrar, Hyderabad,^is directed to consider the application moved by^the petitioner for registration of the society, see whether the said application is in accordance^{with law and} register the society if the law^permitsto do^{so. In} case, the application for registration cannot^be entertained, the same be rejected fumishing^reasons. An order of rejection be supplied to the petitioner. Entire exercise shall be completed within six weeks

¶35

¶36

DT CSL, J W.P.No.l5939 of2023

¶37

t - i ; :

¶38

¶39

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There

¶40

shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

ksISTANI_REGTSTRARSD/-K.AMMAJI (:D SECT]ON OFFICER

¶46

//TRUE COPY//

¶47

To,

¶48

The District Reoistrar,_Hyderabad (South), H.No.8_3_166/5t2, il Ftoor, Enagadda, Hyaerioao-sood1s,^{----\Yvva'|r'/'I r'}

¶49

One CC to SRt R.CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl

¶50

Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS AND REG|STRATION, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad IOUTI^{- -}

¶51

Two CD Copies

BSR

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0410712023

ORDER

5t r. tS
atQ o^i
i
"', <br>q <br>ltll/ ) III
) t I lt\t TM i. .,,
-. //
\ -::
'.,\47
i'. t rr'.c.! 'rr. '.-,"
:.l.
-*-r'

¶58

WP.No.15939 of²⁰²³

¶59

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT^PETITION,

¶60

WITHOUT COSTS

¶61

*W,
l rdnl)/>

Syed Maqdoom Hussain v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Maqdoom Hussain 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. P. S. Sugunakar Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Izhar Ul Haque Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Duggempudi Ravindra Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Karivedya Sathyabama Vs The State of Telangana

Challuri Prathiba Alias Sabers Prathiba Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. G. Sai Nagadeep, Vs The State of Telangana