IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.37183 OF 2017 (GM-WAKF) BETWEEN:
MR ABDUL HAMEED UD S/O UD HAMMABBA POST ULLAL MANGALORE D.K.-575020.
(BY MR. K S HARISH, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MINORITY WELFARE (HAJ AND WAKF) NO.204, II FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKF DARUL AWKAF, NO.6, CUNNIGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560052 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
3. THE WAKF OFFICER THE OFFICE OF THE D.K.DISTRICT WAKF, D.C.OFFICE COMPOUND, MANGALORE-575001.
… PETITIONER 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, OFFICE OF THE D.C AND EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, NEAR STATE BANK, MANGALORE-575001.
5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANGALORE TALUK MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, OPP MAIDAN ROAD, MANGALORE-575001.
6. THE PRESIDENT SEYYID MADANI ARABIC EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MELANGADY, ULLAL, MANGALORE, D.K.-575020.
… RESPONDENTS (BY MR. VIJAY KUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R-1, 4 & 5 MR. IMRAN ASSTS. FOR R-2 MR. SACHIN B S, ADV. FOR R-6 R-3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO 5 TO CONSIDER AND ACT ON THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-A TO D THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.K.S.Harish, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Vijay Kumar A.Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 4 & 5.
Mr.Imbran Assts., learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Mr.Sachin B.S., learned counsel for respondent No.6.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a direction to the respondent Nos.2 to 5 to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner contained in Annexures A to D.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the representation submitted by them shall be considered. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law if not already decided.
5. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the competent authority to decide the representations submitted by the petitioner, if not already decided in accordance with law by a speaking order within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. Till the representation submitted by the petitioner is decided, ad-interim order dated 21.08.2017 shall continue. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
6. With regard to the other relief which have been claimed by the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him under the law.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS