IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE Writ Petition No.15911 Of 2015 C/W WRIT PETITION NOS.34789-34793 OF 2015(GM – WAKF) IN W.P. NO.15911/15 BETWEEN:
MAJLIS –E-MUNTAZIMA, MASJID & DARGAH HAZRATH KAMBAL POSH (R.A.), H.K.P. ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 051.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MR.MUNEER AHMED SHARIFF, AGED 49 YEARS.
(BY SRI. BRIJESH PATIL, ADV.) AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA BOARD OF WAKFS, BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NO.16, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 052.
2. MR.AJEZ AHMED, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O SYED GHOUSE PEER, EX-ADMINSTRATOR AND PRESENTLY APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR, MASJID & DARGAH HAZRATH …PETITIONER KAMBAL POSH (R.A.), H.K.P. ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 051.
3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SHIVAJINAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU – 560 051.
4. ASADULLA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O ABDULLA, R/A NO.27, SLAUGHTER HOUSE ROAD, ‘B’ STREET, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 051.
5. SYED AKRAM, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, S/O SYED ASLAM, R/A NO.27, SLAUGHTER HOUSE ROAD, ‘B’ STREET, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 051.
6. SYED SALEEM, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O BAKASH, R/A NO.9, E NO.13TH STREET, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 051.
7. ABDUL BASITH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O MR.ABDUL, R/A NO.32, ‘A’ STREET, HKP ROAD CROSS, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 051.
(BY SMT.S.R.ANURADHA, ADV., FOR R1; SRI.KALLEMULLAH SHARIF, ADV., FOR R2; SRI.V.SHIVAREDDY, HCGP FOR R3;
…RESPONDENTS SRI.HEMANTH KUMAR, ADV., FOR R4 & R5; SRI.SYED SUHAIL ALI, ADV., FOR R6 & 7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, CO-WARRANTO, MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION OR ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTIONS, TO QUASH ANNEXURE – A DATED 09.04.2015 PASSED BY THE R-1 AND ALSO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEFS BY PASSING SUCH ORDER/ORDERS AND ETC., IN W.P.Nos.34789-793/2015 BETWEEN:
1. FAIZULLA SHARIEF SHARIEF, S/O MOHAMMED HANEEF, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 2. M.SADIQ ALI, S/O LATE MOHAMMED ALI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 3. WAZEER, S/O MOHAMMED HABEEB, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 4. SYED IQBAL, S/O SYED ISMAIL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 5. JAMSHEED, S/O FAKEER AHMED, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, ALL ARE THE MEMBERS OF GENERAL BODY OF MASJID AND DARGAH HAJRAT KAMBAL POSH (R.A), H.K.P. ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 051.
(BY SRI. BRIJESH PATIL, ADV. FOR P2 TO 5) AND:
…PETITIONERS 1. KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKF, NO.06, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 052.
BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 2. SRI.AJAZ AHMED, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O SYED GHOUSE PEER, EX-ADMINSTRATOR AND PRESENTLY APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR, MASJID & DARGAH HAZRATH KAMBAL POSH (R.A.), H.K.P. ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 051.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.S.R.ANURADHA, ADV., FOR R1; SRI.NAVEED AHMED, ADV., FOR R2; SRI.SYED UMMER, ADV., IMPLEADING APPLICANT ON IA 1/16) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PAPER PUBLICATION ISSUED IN SALAR URDU NEWSPAPER DATED 09.08.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-2 TO AUCTION SHOP NO.78, DARGHA COMPOUND, SHEET ROOFING, SHOP NO.9/3, DARGHA CIRCLE, RCC ROOFING, SHOP NO.6/1, DARGAH CIRCLE, CEMENT ROOF SHEETING, 1ST FLOOR, NEW BUILDING, RCC, ROOFING, MEASURING 530 SQ.FT. 1ST FLOOR, NEW BUILDING, RCC ROOFING, MEASURING 400 SQ. FT. VACANT SITE, DARGAH COMPOUND, MEASURING 5000 SQ.FT. SCHEDULED TO BE HELD ON 18.08.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE – A AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri. Brijesh Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Smt. S. R. Anuradha, learned counsel for the respondent No.1; Sri. Naveed Ahmed, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in both the petitions. Sri. V. Shivareddy, High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.3; Sri. Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5; Sri. Syed Suhail Ali, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P.15911/15. Sri. Syed Ummer, learned counsel for impleading applicant on I.A.1/16 in W.P.34789-793/15.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 – WAKF Board submits that the term of the managing committee of the petitioner-institution has already come to an end. Therefore nothing survives for adjudication in these writ petitions.
3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he be granted the liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available in law for seeking a direction to the WAKF Board to ensure that fresh elections, in accordance with law, are held in respect of the petitioner-institution.
4. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the writ petitions are disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the petitioner.
The impleading applicant as well as the petitioner shall get the liberty to take recourse to the reliefs claimed by them in the interlocutory applications by taking recourse to such remedy as may be available to them in law.
Sd/- JUDGE RD