Dismissed

Syed Shakeel Ahmed v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Mar 2024WP/5996/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 226 seeking declaration of non-consideration of a representation as illegal was dismissed at admission stage. The Court held an alternative remedy exists under Section 70 of the Waqf Act, 1995, and directed authorities to decide within two months. Petitioner to pay requisite fee.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner directed to avail alternative remedy under Section 70 of the Waqf Act, 1995 and pay requisite fee; authorities to decide within two months.

Syed Shakeel Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

t³³⁰⁰¹

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF,MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶7

WR]T PETITION NO:5996 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Syed Shakeel Ahmed, S/o.Syed Ghouse, Age 42 years, Occ; Eusiness, R/o.8-468/9/48/A Ali Nagar, Opp.Pista House, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad.

¶10

.....PETITIONER

¶11

NND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Minorities Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶13

Telangana State Waqf Board, Represented by its Chairman, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Chief Executive Offrcer, Telangana State Waqf Board, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶15

Smt. Fatimaunnisa Begum, D/o Late Syed Farooq Ali, ASe. Major, Occ. Muthawallia Dargah Hazrah Janullah Shah Quadri^(Rh) and Grave^Yard, R/o.H.No.17-1-3011 10, R.C. Nagar, EdiBazar, Hyderabad.

¶16

.....RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition Under Article 226 ot thc- Constitution of lndia^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances stated in the affidavit fihd therewith, the High Court^{may be} pleased to issue appropriate Writ or any other order or direclion particu{arly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the^{RespondentNos.2} and 3 in not considering the representation dated 06-06-2023,^{for removalof the} 4th respondent as Mutawallia of Dargah Hazzarath Janullah^Shah Quadri^Sahab (RH), as ilbgal, dereliction of dutbs, arbitrary and contrary to the^{provisions of} the Waqf Act, 1995.

¶18

¶19

I .A.NO:1 OF 2024

¶20

Petition Under Section 15'l cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representation dated 06-06!1023, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶21

Counset for the petitioner : SRt MOHD ISLAMUDDIN ANSARI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Gp FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI ABU AKRAM

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: _

¶23

The Court made the foilowing OROER

t \

I I

THE HONOURAALE SRI JUSTICE ITAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A

¶28

WRIT PETITIOT{ No.5996 ol2O24

¶29

OR.DER:

¶30

This writ petition is filed seeking the foll,owing reliefi-

¶31

'...to rlssue appropiate Wit or ang oller order or diredion partictlarly one in the nature of Wit of Mandnmas decbnrq the action of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not consideing the representation dated O6O6-2O23, for remoual of the 4th respondent as Mutanuallia of Dargah Hazzarath Jarutllah Shtth Quadi^{Sahab(RH)as illegial, derelidionof dtties,arbitraryand.} contrary to the provisions of the Waqf Ad, 1995 and to 1toss..."

¶32

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri Abu Akram, learned Standing Counsel for Waqf Board appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 has submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed because an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 7O of the Waqf Act (for short 'the ActJ.

¶33

Leamed counsel for the petitioner Sri Mohd.Islarnuddin Ansari, did not oppose the said submission.

¶34

Since the petitioner is having an alternative remedy under Section 70 of the Act, with the consent of both ttre learned counsel, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ^petition at

¶35

¶36

the admission stage itself, relegating the petitioner to avail the altemative remedy.

¶37

The Writ^petition is, accordingly, disposed of relegating the petitioner to avail alternaLive remedy duly paying the requisite fee to the Waqf Board concerned. On such pa1rment, the authorities concerned are directed to take a decision in accordance with law, within a period of two months fi.om the date of receipt a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶39

¶40

SD/- A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT REGlS R

¶41

//TRUE COPY//

¶42

SECT]ON OFFICER t

¶43

To 1. The Principal Secretary, Minorities Welfare^{Department, SecretariatBuildings,} State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶44

The Chairman, Telangana State Waqf Board, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶45

The Chief Executive Officer, Telangana State Waqf Board, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶46

Two CCs to GP For Social Welfare, High Court for the State of^{Telangana at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶47

One CC to Sri Mohd Islamuddin Ansari, Advocate [OPUC]

¶48

One CC to Sri Abu Akram, Advocate^(OPUC)

¶49

Two CD Copies

"\Y

HIGH COURT

DATED:06 tO3t2O24

(oR lirt S14 )-{:
q)
(('('
t 2 ? t4AB trllt E
o'+* ^+
t
PATCHeO

¶56

ORDER

¶57

WP.No.5996 of 2OZ4

¶58

DISPOSING OF THE W.P WTHOUT COSTS.

¶59

outtJ
3 *

Syed Shakeel Ahmed v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Shakeel Ahmed 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

R.R.G.R.P. Industries Vs The State of A.P. rep. by

M/s. Credence Crop Care Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Mahathi Eco Tech, Vs The State of Telangana

M.A. Hafeez Vs Smt. G. Narsamma

Brahmandam Laxmi Venkata Bhaskara Sharma Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. v. Malathi Devi Vs The State of Telangana