Disposed

Mohammed Khaja Baseeruddin v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Telangana HC5 Feb 2025WP/30698/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petition seeking appointment as Additional Qazi is disposed of with liberty to file an application before the competent authority, identified as the District Collector per G.O. Ms. No. 24, within one week. The Collector must decide within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file application before District Collector for appointment as Additional Qazi; Collector to decide within two weeks.

Mohammed Khaja Baseeruddin Vs The State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

i: !

¶2

ls252l

¶3

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

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE^{FIFTH DAYOF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{MRS JUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA}

¶7

WRIT PETITIO N^{NO: 3069 80F 2022}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mohammed Khaja^{Baseeruddin' S/o Mohammed Khaja Samiuddin SahabF|/o} 'id-z)'iiiz:iz.tielis, l,t""c,^- Coonv, 28 vears' Tadbun' Bahadurpura' Hyderabad

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . The State of^{Telangana'Rep.by its Princip?JSecretary' Minority welfare}

¶13

;l=^"J+Lq"J#t?4",i:'fi^{'s:',13',lilllEiX''1i!??33;o}",bvitschier Executive Officer

¶14

ih; Di;fi "i 6Jl tector, Hvderabad^{District,Hvderabad} i. o"=iliriiiii. il;-oof^{ti' tr;i'"-*' so LitJQe'it{abeeb'urRehman' Aged} - ;;"1ie;;;"it, o"" b"=i-nio A-No' i'i-tzz, Bholakpur' Musheerabad' Hyderabad, TS.

¶15

(R4 is impleaded as^{per C.O' dt' 18'11'2023 in l'A' No 2l2O22</sup>}

¶16

s. Oazi Sved Lateef^{Ali Quadri, S/o Latg} !yed-A.1!!li^{Quadri' Aged55 years'} " 683'o?i"o#i iv"' ir -r'16. s:+-- t1i t i t t t k, To.l i chowki Hvd erabad 6. QaziMohd.^{ZaheerudddsdL;idiq;h-o'n't'mugoin'Age! Qs vears'.occ} " il"i ci;il Fv; H.M. tslhilst2lB, Ghouse Nagar' Nawab Sahab^Kunta' Hyderabad.

¶17

(RR 5 and 6 are impleaded^{as per C'O dt' 23'01'2024 in l A No 1l2O23)}

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under^{Article226 oI the Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith'theHighCourtmaybe pleased to issue an^{appropriateWrit, orderor direction more particularlyone in the} nature wRlT^{OF MANDAMUS,declaring the actionof the respondents in not} passingordersontherepresentationsubmittedbythepetitionerasbeingillegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional^{and consequentlydirect the respondentsto forthwith} pa.ssordersontherepresentationofthepetitionerdt.22.oT.2o22forsupplyof

¶20

Shiyajaths and for appointing the petitioner as Additional eazi of eila Moham mednaga r.

¶21

lA NO: 1 oF 2022

¶22

Petition under Section 151 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 wakf Board to suppry Shiyajaths and Marriage Bookrets for enabling the petitioner to perform the marriages in Qira Mohammednagar, pending disposal of the mairr Writ petition.

¶23

IA NO: 10F 2024

¶24

Petition unde' Section 't 51 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to grant Leave to receive additionar documents fired in support of counter fired by Respondents 5 & 6 in the main w.p.No. 3069g12022 in the interest of justice and pass

¶25

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI p.pANDU RANGA REDDY Counset for the Resnondent No.1: aeFloC'iiGlnl welaone Counset for the Resnondenr No.2: gniaati a-x-niil, sc aon rswe counset for rhe Respondent No.3: cp iiiliiiiirliile Counsel for the Respondent No.4: sRl Si;;J;;,r,ro xueru counset for the Respondent Nos.S & 6, s;ii6ul?iu moHruoolr,r

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

{

¶28

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLT^NANDA

¶29

WRIT P ITION No.30698 oF 2022

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

Heard Sri P, Pandu Ranga Reddy, learned^counsel appearing on behalf of the^{petitioner, learnedAssistant} Government Pteader for Social^{Welfare, appearing on} behalf respondent No.1, Sri Abu Akram,^{learned counsel} appearing on behalf of respondent^{No.2 atrd Sri Sultan} Mohiuddin, learned counsel appearing^{onbehalf of} respondent Nos.S and^5.

¶32

2. The petitioner approached the Court^{seeking prayer} as under:

¶33

"...to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction^more particularly one in the nature WRIT OF^MANDAMUS declaring the action of the^{respondents in not passing} orders on the representation^{submittedby the petitioner} as being illegal, arbitrary,^{u nconstitutionaIand} consequently direct the respondents^{to forthwithpass} orders on the representation^{of the petitioner dated} 22.07.2022 for supply of^{Shiyajaths and for appointing} the petitioner as Additional Qazi^of Qila^{Mohammednagar} and pass...".

.1
*

SN, J wP \0698 2022

The casc. of the petitioner, in brief, is that the^petitioner is rendering senrices as Naib Qazi for the^past seven^years in Qazaath^{Mustaidpurazone. The petitioneris also well versed in} reciting Quran and also^performs marriages among Muslims. On 13.07.2022 thr: Additional Qazi of Qila Mohammednagar namely Mohammed Habeeb Ur Rahman had expired, who used to perform the marriages of local Muslim people. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 22,07.2022 to the respondent Nos. l and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment cf Additional Qazi of Qila Mohammednagar. However, the s;ame had not been considered till date. Hence the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶38

The learned counsel appearing on.behalf of the^petitioner fairly submits that the^petitioner is not insisting for the prayer as sought for in the^present writ^petition in view of the fact that vide G.O.Ms.No. 24, dated 29.04.2022 issued by 1st respondent herein, the competent authority to consider the application of the petitioner as Additional Khazi of Qazaath Qile Mohammed Nagar in place of Shri Late Mohammed Habeeb Ur Rahman, is the District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad i.e. 3.d

SNJ wP 30698 2022

respondent herein. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner however submits that in view of the fact that the District Collector, Hyderabad i.e. 3'd respondent is the competent authority as per the G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 29.04.2022, the petitioner would make an application to the 3d respondent and the 3'd respondent may consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law, within a reasonable period.

¶43

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of 5th and 6th respondent submits that the petitioner is at liberty to file any number of applications but in the present case the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

¶44

fn view of the fact that petitioner approached this Court in the year 2022 seeking consideration of petitioner's case for appointment as Additional Khazi of Qazaath Qila^Mohammed Nagar and the same had been pending final adjudication by this Court as on date and also in view of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 29.0,4.2022 by the 1"t respondent herein, this Court opines that the objections raised by the learned counsel appearing on

¶45

¶46

SN, J uP i0698 2022

¶47

behalf of the respondent Nos.s and 6 are untenable^and accordingly rejected.

¶48

7 Takino into consi deration :

¶49

(a) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the^petitioner and the^learned counsel appearing on behalf of the^{respondentNos.s} and 6,

¶50

(b) G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 29.o4.2022 issued by the 1"t respondent.

¶51

¶52

The writ petition is disposed of^giving liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the competent authority i.e. District Collector,^{Hyderabad District,} Hyderabad as stipulated in the G.O.Ms.No.24,^dated 29.0,4.2(J24 clearly explaining the^grievances as^{put forth} by the petitioner in the^present writ^{petition seeking} appointment of the^petitioner as^{AdditionalKhazi of} Qazaath Qila^{MohammedNagar in place of Shri Late} Mohammed Habeeb Ur Rahman since the^post of^{Khazi got} vacant after the death of Shri Late Mohammed Habeeb Ur

¶53

¶54

SN, J wP 30698 2022

¶55

Rahman, within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and the competent authority/3'd respondent herein shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance to taw expeditiously, within two (Z) weeks thereafter and communicate the decision on the said application to the petitioner. However. there shall be no order as to costs.

¶56

The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶57

SD/-P. PADMANABHA REDDY AS T REG

//TRUE COPY//

CTION OFFICER

The Principal gecretary, Minority welfare (Estt-ll) Department, Secretariat

¶62

^{Buildings, Hyderabad, Stateof Telangana..}

¶63

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

¶64

The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hvderabad

¶65

One CC to SRI P.PAND-U_RANGA REDDY, Advocate [OpUC]

¶66

Two CCs to GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE, High Court ior the State of

¶67

,^{Telangana, at Hyderabad.} [OUT]

¶68

One CC to SRI SHAFAT AHMEO fUaru, Advocate tOpUCI

¶69

One CC to SRI SULTAN MOH|UDD|N, Advocate tOpUCl^'

¶70

One CC to SRI ABU AKRAM, SC FOR TSWB tOpUCl

¶71

Two CD Copies

¶72

PSK.

¶73

BS w

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510212025

ORDER

WP.No.30698^{of 2022}

¶79

S,IAI E OI
).
9
:
1t $tlrt 811
a
+
+ )
)i r. ,_c,i\ .1.
.'-=

¶80

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶81

crcci:
I?.
Frpn'

Mohammed Khaja Baseeruddin v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Khaja Baseeruddin v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

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

Pothureddy Bhaskar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Unique Interiors Vs The A.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board

Mahalakshmi Profiles Private Limited Vs State Load Dispatch Centre

M/s Vinayak Steels Ltd, rep.by its Vice President Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of a.P.Limited

Ms Agarwal Foundaries Private Limited Vs State Load Dispatch Centre

M/s. M. Bhaskar Rao and Co., Vs Inspector, employees State Insurance Corporation