IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.13415 OF 2019 (GM-WAKF) BETWEEN:
MR. MEHUL JAIN S/O. MR. M.K. VANCHAND AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO.98 FATEH MANSION, 1ST FLOOR ROOM NO.5 SETH MOTISHAH LANE MAZGOAN MUMBAI-400 010.
HEREIN REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER MR. JITENDRA SOHANLAL JAIN S/O. MR. SOHANLAL JAIN AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.98 FATEH MANSION, 1ST FLOOR ROOM NO.5 SETH MOTISHAH LANE MAZGOAN MUMBAI-400 010. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI AMTI MANDGI, ADV.) AND:
1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AQUAF “DARUL AUQAF”, NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE-560 025.
2. THE DISTRICT WAQF OFFICER DISTRICT WAQF OFFICE NO.16, 2ND FLOOR HAZ. HAMMED SHAH AND HAZ. MUHIB SHAH COMPLEX CUBBONPET BENGALURU-560 002.
3. SR AMMAR G. AYAZ S/O. GULAM ABBAS MAJOR NO.317, JOLLY BHAVAN NO.10, NEW MARINE LINES MUMBAI-400 020.
4. K. SYED KHALIL S/O. SYED ALI MAJOR 5. SMT. TAHIRA KHALIL S/O. SYED KHALIL MAJOR 6. SYED RAEES KHALIL S/O. SYED KHALIL MAJOR RESPONDENTS NO. 4 TO 6 ARE RESIDENT OF NO.15 NISHARA MANI, 34TH MAIN TMC LAYOUT, J.P. NAGAR BANGALORE-560 078.
7. SRI ABDUL RAZAK S/O. HYDROSE MAJOR 8. SMT. ZAEEDA BEGUM W/O. LATE K. RIAZ AHAMED MAJOR 9. SRI K. RIZWAN AHAMED S/O. LATE K. RIAZ AHAMED MAJOR 10. SMT. RUHIZAMMA W/O. BASHA D/O. LATE K. RIAZ AHAMED MAJOR 11. SRI K. IRFAN AHAMED S/O. LATE K. RIAZ AHAMED MAJOR 12. SRI K. UMARAH AHAMED S/O. LATE K. RIAZ AHAMED MAJOR 13. SRI K. FARKHAN AHAMED S/O. LATE K. RIAZ AHAMED MAJOR 14. SRI KUM. HAJJIRA BANU D/O. LATE K. RIAZ AHAMED MAJOR 15. SRI K. AJAZ AHMAD S/O. LATE ABDUL SALAM MAJOR 16. SMT. FATHIMA BEGUM W/O. ABDUL SALAM MAJOR.
RESPONDENTS NO. 7 TO 16 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.3/1 NIZAMUDDIN MOHALLA MYSORE ROAD BENGALURU-560 018. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2019 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN PROCEEDINGS PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri Amit Mandgi, learned counsel for petitioner.
Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents.
2. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 07.02.2019 which reads as hereunder:
“7-2-19:
Case called out Both present.
Adv. for Ret filed objection Heard both the advocates and the Interlocutory Application filed by the Petitioner is hereby rejected Cross examination For (non present) Call on 28.02.2019 Sd/”.
From the perusal of the aforesaid order, it is evident that the same is bereft of any reasons and has been passed in cryptic and cavalier manner.
3. It is trite law that even a quasi-judicial authority is required to assign reasons for passing the order. In view of the decision laid down by the Supreme court in ‘VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL vs. HOWRAH GANATANTRIK NAGRIK’, 2010 (3) SCC 732, reasons were held to be the heartbeat of every conclusion, apart from being an essential feature of the principles of natural justice, that ensure transparency and fairness, in the decision making process.
4. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned order dated 07.02.2019 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.02.2019 is quashed. The respondent No.1-Chief Executive Officer, Karnataka State Board of Aquaf, is directed to decide the application filed by the petitioner afresh in accordance with law by a speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST