IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION No.46924/2013 (GM-WAKF) BETWEEN:
SYED SAMIULLA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O SRI BANDUSAB, MUTHAWALLI OF JUNGLEE PEER DARGAH, YARAMANTAHALLI VILLAGE, NIMKAYANHALLI ROAD, POST: MURAGMALLA, TALUK: CHINTAMANI, DISTRICT:CHICKBALLAPUR-571101.
... PETITIONER (VIDE ORDER DATED 4.4.2019, SRI MAHAMOOD PATEL IS RETIRED FROM THE CASE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, MINORITY WELFARE, HAJJ AND WAKFS DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, ROOM NO.204, 2ND FLOOR, BANGALORE-560001, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT.
2. THE KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKFS, "DARUL AWKAF", NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560052.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
3. SRI BASHA SAB, AGED: MAJOR, S/O SATTAR SAB, APPOINTED AS ADMINISTRATOR FOR DARGAH HAZRATH JUNGLEE PEER, YARAMANTAHALLI VILLAGE, POST: MURUGMALLA, TALUK:CHINTAMANI, DIST: CHICKBALLAPUR-571101.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, HCGP FOR R-1, SMT. S. R. ANURADHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.20.7.2013 PASSED IN REV. PETITION NO.MWD/4/WLM/2013 BY THE R-1 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AND ALLOW THE PRAYERS OF THE PETITIONER MADE IN REV. PETITION NO.MWD/4/WLM/2013 AND/OR ISSUE ANY OTHER ORDER/S, DIRECTION/S TO THE RESPONDENTS IN THE FORM OF WRIT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri V. Shivareddy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1.
Smt. S. R. Anuradha, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner in this petition has assailed the validity of the dated 20.7.2013, by which the State Government has refused to interfere with the order of appointment of an administrator for a period of six months. It is further submitted that the period for which the administrator was appointed has already come to an end. Therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition.
3. In view of the aforesaid submission and taking into account the fact that the period for which the administrator was appointed has already expired, writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
SD/- JUDGE MD