IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.66 OF 2018(GM-WAKF) BETWEEN:
Sri.C.R.Shabber Ahamad, S/o late C.Abdul Rahaman, Aged about 68 years, R/o 1st Main, 4th Cross, J.C.Badavane, Harihar Town and Taluk – 577 601. Davanagere District.
(By Sri.Prabhu Swamy.N, Advocate for Sri.V.B.Siddaramaiah, Advocate) AND:
1. The Chief Secretary, State of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Karnataka State Board of Wakf, Cunnigham Road, Bengaluru – 560 052.
3. The Wakf Officer, District Wakf Office, B-40, P.J. Extension, Muslim Hostel Complex, … Petitioner Chetana Hotel Road, Davanagere – 577 002.
4. President, Anjuman – A - Islam (R) Sunni Hnafi Idga Maidan, Harihar – 577 602, Davanagere District.
… Respondents (By Sri.Vijay Kumar A. Patil, AGA for R1; Sri.P.S.Malipatil, Advocate for R2 and R3; R4 is served and unrepresented) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the R-1, the Principal Secretary, The State of Karnataka to consider the representation of the pettiioenr dated 18.08.2017, in accordance with law vide Annexure E and etc.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Prabhu Swamy.N, learned counsel for Sri.V.B.Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate respondent No.1.
Sri.P.S.Malipatil, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 18.08.2017.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the petitioner nowhere in the writ petition has disclosed as to how he is interested in the affairs of the mosque in question. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no locus to make any complaint.
4. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that previously the petitioner was a member of the Committee of respondent No.4 and has locus to maintain the complaint.
5. Be that as it may. In the fact situation of the case and taking into account the nature of grievance made by the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent No.2 – The Chief Executive Officer, Karnataka State Board of Wakf, Bengaluru to consider the representation contained in Annexure – D dated 17.08.2017 and decide the question of locus of the petitioner and thereafter, to adjudicate the averments made in the complaint by a speaking order in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all necessary parties, within a period of three months from today. Ordered accordingly.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-