IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE W.P.No.62678/2016 (GM-WAKF) BETWEEN:
Muhiyuddeen Juma Masjid, Killur Post, Belthangady Taluk, D.K.District – 574 214, Represented by its President, K.A.Mohammed Haneef, S/o Abdul Raheman, Aged about 43 years, Ankarapal House, Killuru Post, MIthabhagilu Village, Belthangady Taluk, D.K.District – 574 214. … PETITIONER (By Sri Shrihari.K., Adv.) AND:
1. Karnataka State Board of Wakfs, Cunningham Road, Bengaluru – 560 052, Represented by its Chief Executive Officer.
2. Dakshina Kannada District Board of Wakfs, D.C.Office Compound, D.K.District – 575 002, Represented by its Chief Executive Officer.
3. Rahmaniya Masjid and Dargah Shariff, Kajoor Killur Belthangady Taluk, D.K.District – 574 214, Represented by its President, Mr. P.A.Muhammed, S/o Abdul Khader.
4. Sri P.A.Mohammed Rafi, S/o Abdul Khadar, Major, Administrator, Rahmaniya Masjid & Dargah Shariff, Kajoor Killur, Belthangady Taluk, D.K.District. … RESPONDENTS (Amended vide Court Order dated 10.10.2018) (By Sri M.H.Haneef, Adv. for R-1 & R-2; Sri Rajaram Sooryambail, Adv. for R-3) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 07.10.2016 numbered as order passed by R-1 produced at Annexure-A.
This petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER 1. In this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the scheme of administration of respondent No.3 which is said to have been approved by respondent No.1.
2. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has entered into an agreement with some of the members of respondent No.3, who are parties to the agreement. He, therefore, seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition.
3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondents 1 & 2 submits that before entering into the agreement, the consent of respondents 1 & 2 has not been obtained. He further submits that the aforesaid agreement is contrary to the scheme of management.
4. In view of the rival submissions and in the facts of the case, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the writ petition reserving liberty to respondents 1 & 2 to challenge the agreement arrived at between the petitioner and the members of respondent No.3 who are signatories to the agreement, in accordance with law. Petition is accordingly disposed of. Needless to state that the persons who are not parties to the aforesaid agreement shall also be at liberty to challenge the agreement in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE KK