Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard.
The petitioner herein alleges harassment by opposite party no. 1 through opposite party nos. 4 and 5. It seems that some litigation had taken place earlier, which resulted in rejection of Suit of One Sri Mohammad Rafiq Khan Advocate. It seems that petitioner's father had filed a Suit bearing No. 533 of 1984, arraying Muslim Musafir Khana and the Officer In-Charge of Muslim Musafirkhana, Charbagh, Lucknow as defendants. The suit was for permanent injunction, which was decreed.
It is said that the said decree dated 03.08.1987 was not put to challenge. Before this Court the alleged cause set up by the petitioner, the son of Haji Mohammad Idris, is that opposite party no. 1 is harassing the petitioner through the opposite party nos. 4-Police Commissioner, Lucknow and 5- Station House Officer, Kotwali Naka Hidnola, Lucknow and creating hindrances in running of the canteen which he is running at the Musafir Khana. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to harass the petitioner in any manner in the interest of justice.
As informed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the father of the petitioner died in July 2006 and he had a decree dated 03.08.1987 in his favour.
We asked the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to whether Muslim Musafir Khana is a private body or a Government instrumentality. He had no answer to it, instead he sought time.
We again asked learned Counsel for the petitioner as to whether he had gone through the Rules of the Court, if so, how the State of U.P. has been arrayed through Secretary, U.P. State Haj Committee. He answered that it is the Secretary/ Executive Officer, U.P. State Haj Committee constituted by the State Government which has issued the order dated 14.12.2020 to the petitioner for removing/shifting the canteen, illegally running in the Musafir Khana, therefore, the State of U.P. has been arrayed as a party.
The letter dated 14.12.2020 annexed as Annexure No. 4, which is said to have been issued by the Secretary/ Executive Officer of the Haj Committee, has not even been challenged in this petition.
We again asked the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to whether, under the Rules of the Court, this was permissible and whether the Secretary/Executive Officer of U.P. State Haj Committee is of the rank of Additional Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary or Secretary of such department, learned Counsel for the petitioner was at sea.
We again asked the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to whether U.P. State Haj Committee is a department of the Government or its instrumentality. Again he could not give any satisfactory reply.
We again asked learned Counsel for the petitioner as to whether the State Haj Committee was a party in the suit filed by the petitioner's father, he categorically replied that it was not a party.
In the absence of requisite information on relevant aspects noticed hereinabove, we are unable to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, as there is no material on record to show that the State Haj Committee is an instrumentality of State. Moreover, at this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is Waqf property, then we asked him as to whether Waqf Board has been arrayed as a party, in view of order 92 of the Waqf Act 1995, it has not been arrayed.
As regards harassment by opposite party no. 4 the Police Commissioner, Lucknow, there is no averment in the writ petition. On being asked to point out the specific allegation against the opposite party no. 5, the counsel for the petitioner invited our attention in paragraphs 30 and 31 which are absolutely vague. No details have been mentioned as to when and who from the local police had visited the Musafir Khana or canteen, being run by the petitioner and created a hindrance.
In view of above, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition and dismiss the same. We, however, grant liberty to the petitioner either to approach the appropriate court/forum or even to file a fresh writ petition provided he is able to satisfy that the petition is maintainable under Article 226 of Constitution of India and is not directed against a private party and that there has been specific harassment by police personnel who have interfered in the exercise of his rights illegally. Subject to this, the petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.1.2021 Jyoti/-