Disposed

Shaik Jakeer Hussain v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Sept 2023WP/23639/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the inaction of the Wakf Board in removing two appointees as joint mutawallis despite an enquiry report alleging violation of the Wakf Act, claiming arbitrary conduct violating constitutional rights.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No.2 (Wakf Board) to take appropriate action on the pending enquiry report within three months and to provide opportunity of personal hearing to the 5th and 6th respondents before

Shaik Jakeer Hussain Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF^SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR}

¶6

WR!T PETITION NO: 23639^{OF 2023}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Shaik Jakeer Hussain, S/o.^{Madar Saheb, Aged about 35 years'Occ.} Business, Rlio. H.No.'1-9-351481481N2,^{Manchiganti Nagar, Khammam City,} Khammam District.

¶9

Mohammed Sadathullah Baig,^{S/o. Mirzalqbal Baig, Aged about 31 years,} Occ. Priest, R:/o. H.No.8-1-254,^{B.K.Guda, KhammamDistrict.}

¶10

Shaik Abdul Rasheed Ahmed,^{S/o. Meera Saheb, Aged39 years,Occ} Business, R/o. 4-31, Mustikuntla,^{Bonakal, KhammamDistrict.}

¶11

Haqiz Mohammed Osman, S/o.^{tVlohammedShakir, Aged 36 years, Occ.} Private Teacher, R/o. 8-6-189,^{Thummalagadda,Khammam Urban,} Khammam District.

¶12

Syed Jani Miya, S/o. Madar,^{Aged abo.ut 45 ye-ars,Occ. Business, R/o. 1-9-} 35t48-2, Manahikantinagar,^{Khammam Urban, KhammamDistrict.}

¶13

Syed Sabir Ahmed, S/o.^{Umar, Age_daqog!44 years,Occ. Journalist,RJo} H:No.9-4-1 84, Kamanbazar, Station^{Road, KhammamDistrict.}

¶14

Mohammed Fahad, S/o Late^{Rehman,Aged about 27 years,Occ. Business,} R/o. H.No.1-9-46, Bokkalagadda, Khammam^{Urban KhammamDistrict.}

¶15

...PETITIONERS

¶16

AND

¶17

The State of Telangana, Rep. by^{its Principal Secretary, Minorities Welfare} Deoartment. Secretariat. Hvderabad.

¶18

T# Chief Executive Officei,^{Telangana State WaKBoard, Nampally,} Hyderabad.

¶19

The lnspector Auditor, Wakf,^{Khammam, KhammamDistrict.}

¶20

The Coilector, Khammam District,^{TelanganaState.} 5. Md. Maqbool, S/o. Md. Khalender,^{Aged about 60 years, Occ. Business,Rl/o} H.No.1-9-63/1 , Manchikanti Nagar,^{Kalvavaddu, Khammam Town and City.}

¶21

Mohd. Sarvar Miya, S/o .^{Mohd. Khalender, Aged about 58 years,. Occ.} Business, FVo. H.No.'1-9-63i^{1, Manchikanti Nagar, Kalvavaddu, Khammam} Town and City.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue a writ, order or orders more^{particularlyone in the nature of writ} of [/andamus holding the^{illegal, arbitrary inaction of the Respondents in particular} 2nd Respondent herein in allowing the^{sth and 6th Respondents fraudulentlyto} continue as Joint Mutavallis of subject^{lnstitutionwhich is notified wakfunder}

¶24

Gazette vide No.4A Part ll, dated 25.01.'1990, inspite of the fact that the inspection repo( of the 2nd Respondent clearly stated that the appointment of 5th and 6th Respondents as Joint Mutavallis was without any enquiry as mandated under section 42(1)of the Wakf Act,^'1995 and thereby contrary to section 42 of the Wakf Act,^'1995 and inspite of the fact that the said lnspection Report details various acts of misappropriation of funds, fabrication of documents for appointment as Joint Mutavallis and illegal sale of subject lnstitution properties as being violative of the Petitioners rights under the Article 14, 21 of the constitution of lndia and the Wakf Act, 1995 and, to consequently direct the Respondents more particularly Respondent No.2 to remove 5th and 6th Respondents appointed as Joint Mutavallis and assume the subject lnstitution under Direct Management of the 2nd Respondent Wakf Board in the interest of justice.

¶25

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶26

Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the illegal appointment of the 5th and 6th Respondents as Joint l\tlutavallis of the subject lnstitution and assume into under the Direct Management of the 2nd Respondent Wakf Board in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶27

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶28

Petition under 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 2nd Respondent to consider representation d1.26.O4.2O23 and 14.06.2023 for the constitution of Managing Committee U/s.'18 of the Wakf Act, 1995 in order to uphold the sanctity, interest and object of the subject lnstitution in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI B.MAYUR REDDY FOR SRI K.V. RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent No.1: AGP FOR MINORITIES WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI ABU AKRAM, SC FOR TSWB Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S & 6: SRI A.M.QURESHI FOR MOHD. NASEER UDDIN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 7: - The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINEITI SUDHEER KUMAR IIRIT PETITION lto.23639 of 2o.23

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners, who are claiming to be the persons interested within the meaning of Seclion 3 (k) of the Waqf Act, 1995 (for short, 'the Act, 1995'), seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.2 in allowing respondent Nos.S and 6 to act as joint mutau,allis of the institution, namely "Dargah Hzt. Sond-eShaeed (Rh), notified under Gazette Notification No.4A Part II, dated 25.01. 1990, in spite of the enquiry report, dated 09.12.2015 subrnittecl by the respondent-Board, as arbitrary and illegal and also sought for a consequential direction to remove respondcnt Nos.S and 6 as joint mutawallis of the subject institution and to asstrme thc subject institution urrder direct management of respondent No.2-Waqf Roard.

¶33

Heard Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri K.V.Raman, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader. for Minorities Welfare, appearlng for rcspondent No. I, Sri Abu Akrarn, lc-arned Standing Counsel for respondent-Waqf l3oard, appearing for

¶34

¶35

respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri A.M.eureshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent l,los.S and 6.

¶36

Sri Abu Akram, learncd Standing Counsel for respondent Waqf Board placed before this Court the written instructions received from respondcnt No.2, wherein it is stated that the enquiry report in respect of the subject nlatter was already submitted to the respondent-Waqf Board on i8.OS.20i9 itself and further action on the said report could not be taker] due to covid- 19 lockdown imposccl by tlic Governmcnt. Ijc fuither submitted that appropriatc dccision ',r.ould bc takcn by duly placing the matter before the Board.

¶37

As the enquiry that was conductcd into thc affairs of the subject institution is aiready pcnding for considcration before the respondent-Board, this Court is of the considered view that it is not appropriate to go into the mcrits of the case at this stage and render any conclusive hnding. tt is for the respondent-Waqf Board to take appropriate action on the enquiry report, dated O9.I2.2O15, which is already pending for consideration before the respondent-Board.

¶38

In view of the above, pending further action to be taken by the respondent-Board on the enquiry report. it is not appropriate for this Court to pass any orders directin,l removal

¶39

¶40

¶41

of respondent Nos.S and 6 from ttre post of joint mutawallis of the subject institution or to record aly finding in that regard.

¶42

In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to examine the matter on merits at this stage and accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to take appropriate action on the report, dated 09.12.2O15, which is pending for consideration before it, in accordance with law, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case, if any adverse orders are to be passed against respondent Nos.S and 6, respondent Nos.s and 6 sha.[ be afforded an opportunity of representing their case and personal hearing before passing any orders.

¶43

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ

¶44

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

¶45

¶46

SD/.V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGIST //TRUE COPYII

¶47

SECTI OFFICER

¶48

¶49

1 The Principal Secretary, Minorities Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

¶50

2 The Chief Executive Officer, Telangana State Wakf Board, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶51

3 The Inspector Auditor, Wakf, Khammam, Khammam District. 4 The Collector, Khammam District, Telangana State.

¶52

5 One CC to SRI K.V.RAlvlAN, Advocate [OPUC] t) Two CCs to GP FOR MINORITIES WELFARE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶53

7 One CC to SRI ABU AKRAM, SC FOR TSWB [OPUC] 8I Two CD CopiesOne CC to SRI MOHD. NASEER UDDIN, Advocate [OPUC]

¶54

PSK.

¶55

GJP g

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510912023

ORDER

WP.No.23639 of 2023

at
.( I r
t...
l,_:
't'
! 't,
1 I I L T 2[m t)
.,
,,. ti

¶61

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. Cgtasffi

Shaik Jakeer Hussain v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Jakeer Hussain v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munnur Vittal Vs Soor Reddy

Gopu Sagar Pavan Kumar Reddy Vs State of Telangana

Lavudya Dev Singh Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Nenavath Kishti Vs The State of Telangana

Mehmood bin Mohammed Vs State of Telangana

Pandala Lingamaiah Vs The Joint Collector-I