High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri K G Basha vs Karnataka State Board on 6 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri K G Basha vs Karnataka State Board on 6 April, 2009
Author: N.K.Patil
IN THE 1110!! COLERT GI? KARRATAJCA AT BANGALORE WP.?~§o.5?i9 OF 2908

E

N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

xzwmn 7313 THE 6"' Dan: at' APRIL, 
BEFORE    
' ms HON'BLE MR. ausnce N.K.PAT! LVv    n

wan' PE'rmo:»I 319.6719  ; ¢mg.w.m;% 

BETWEEN:

1

£5':

SR} K G SASHA
3:0. LATE mouse SABE, 

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS;   
max: vENKATEs:~wA.RAscHaoL,"A  ' 
Li.B.i.A\'0UT, K,R.PURA.M,f ; -- V . "  '
aawemoaeusee 035. ' ' 2

aasaz. games'.  'V

SfO.LATE Hm? KHAN, I  _  
AsEas1"~5EARs,~'V .    " 
Rm;      »
U.B§..A'='{}L.3T, 339 c:Rss,.'j   
K.R'P{3RAM,"*  3 V = ~ A
BANSALQFE-E-56$fi-;«'538.  

3ALE£z:.;PAa;.HA  .  " 

810. LATE SHA5%(.i~iUSSA " " SAB,

..  AGED 41 vams,
 '<.;2:.g=q: %.3§3(409.3RD-$941688,
V  Gi;£3'E"XT%€N$30f~3

 _V K,.R.!?~'.UR.&5£, _
agsegaaaae-56a eras.

  BA8H";9'%{? .%::;A3
 $3; um; BASHUSAB,
AGED 43 amas,

R.'ATf- GL8 POST GFFECE RC-AC),
%<,_R;'F'URA«iU§,

n 'T L " .;9AmA1.c+RE.3s«

" MUJAHD PASHA

S30. KR.Ba°«$i-EA,

AGEB ABOUT 33 YEARS,

WAT: NEAR '»¢'ENKATE8H'NARA SCHOGL, U.8.¥_A,
BAP3€3A€..f3F2E»5@ G36.

i?~«'_ 133:: §il§€3!'i ts-(mas: a~' xé,EE§A'1'Am K1' aamzgsmoxa w.9.:~2o.<m9 or' 29:13



11% THE HIGH CQURT OF KARRATAIQA AT BANGALQRE W.P.N0.6?1§ GP' 2808

J.

8 KALEEM PASHA
SIQSHAIK LHU38AiN SR3,
AGES} 43 YEARS,
R}AT:378fA,K. P.T. ROAD,
KRPURAM,
BANGALGRE-580 G36'

 PET:T:'£§}qER$'V: "  3

(By Sri ; s v SHASTRi 3. RAVI HEGDE, Anvacergs J' 
AND: V A'

'3 K.AR{'~£ATA§<A STATE BOARD

OF WAKFS,

" DARULAWAKF"

NO.6,CUNN!NG-HAM ROAD,
BANGfi.LORE--56{} D52.   . 
8'! ETS CHEF "cEXECUTl"»l_E"€)FFE{3ER: V  -.

an ABDUL RAFEEQ ..  '*
K.R.PuRAz.n, " .  
8Ai€€3ALQRE=56G  '
~ REF? 3*: :73 PREsz::>_;;r_~:.T,
"-1sRs.é.A8::>uL RAFEEQ.

LO

_ T _  ,,  .  RESPONDENTS

gay -s&e*;.PRA52.:~éjuL:i~2s’Navms: Assocwres ma R1;

‘ V $34.33. cHA24o;2gs;3H£KAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2′ AND R3}

dbl}!

V’ WRW F*E’FET§QN £3 FELEEQ UNDER ARTECLES 228 AND 227 01:

CONSTETE.§’E’EGf’»i 0:’: iN{}!A PRAYENG TO ERRECT THE 18′?”
§3EE35’Q¥’-3$ENT TU TAKE GVER THE MANAGEMENT 0′? THE MADING

— ESASJSEJ, – 3RD RESPO¥’~§€}E!\£T WK? FROM”? HE 21%} RESPONflENT BY
*D§SS€}L%!i¥°~éG SQ CAELEID COMMETTEE CGNSTETUTED BY THE 2ND
” ~ * RESPGNDENT AND CQNSEGUENT UPON TAKWG OVER THE

3%. iflijfi; £_f(_::1_11i,’1′ <35 £§AR_NA'l'AKA AT amsanoag W.P.N.6′?i9 or’ 29123

12% THE 1361′ I CCMRT OF KAREQATAICA AT BANGALQR13 W.PE-30.6?! 9 CF ;3{}£%8
3

MANAGEMENT OF THE SRE} RESPONBEN? MASJID DERECT THEWST
RESPONDENT TO AF’P0iNT AN ADMSNSSTRATGR CIR CHEF EX-EEECUTWE

OFFECER FOR THE MANAGAMENT OF THE 3&8 RESPONDENT- WAKF:G.R”A.
TO CGNSHTUTE A COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT DEHOR8I_F§£{?a”TH$;’:. _

RESPONDENT. _- ‘

ms xvm Parmow comma on FOR PRELzM:;:A*Rv:’;;::;AR¥§:G_:N u ” 2 ‘V

‘B’ GROUP, THiS SAY, THE COURT MADE THE §7OLLQWiNG:_.. _T ‘ ~ 4_
o_.;.._22_ %

Petitioners in this have” fcgr a
directicm, directing thefifst také river the
Management 0f the respondent

Wakf from 4’ dissoivirzg so

caiied lay fiwe second respondent.

ConsequéhtL:_L:pQ’n”~féi§Vihg::”§§i¢§r the management 0f the

_._third ,.f;§§pGfld$fif~V..M’§$j§d, petitioners have sought for a

A”r;:liAréc’:i<::Ar:v_,A__'<:*i§é~£§'i'§ng the first respcandent to appoint an

Adiizi.§i'i'$*,trajAtg3x:'9 Chief Executiva Officar of the

v"'~.4.4_'?a§,anagem_ént cf fixe third ragpondent to ccmsiitute 3

of Management dehorsing the second

'vésgziondent.

E94 Ttihi Eiitjfi. £;DUR.’§” 03*’ §:Ai<z~3A'£'A£“?19 my 2993

IN THE IIEGEI CGURT CF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOR33 WnP.}%o.67E9 OF 2008

“l’

2. The oniy grievance of the petitioners in this

petition is that, petitioners herein cieim to be the memieers

of the third reependent — Maejid and

reepcmdent being the President ef the third. i

Meejid has not been functioning vi’ithi:)..4t’i’ie’4’pefei’i1e’ier._’__Ve*f.;vE

the statute and fine reievant w;5_reyieie’rse'”efV

and Ruiee. it is their case eecc:.?ir§«r:;’¢-;§:.;;;;1i§éndent,
being the Praident ef-.1ithe’~.ieei§3 has neither

cenducted reguier” the generei

body mej:eiiegf” relevant provisions ef

the Act ai4i’c{__R uieef these petitioners cieiming

to be ;j:1ee§be;je”ef tiee iihird respondent – Meejici have

representation vide Annexure E

efid V’e§:J§i:i__ reerezsentetion is neither considered nor

V’ .dispeeee Thereefteri they have submittee severe!

‘ V’ fiifemifiifigiewiiend finaiiy on 163′ January 2008 vide Annexure

lefiri, have submitted one mere reminder to the first

‘V V Lreeipendent. The said reminder is else neither considered

Le? ‘me: 3193 €,3()Ui{‘l’ ()3 KARNe’£’Ai<;A A1' BANGALORE w .P.i\%0i6'?l9 9:4 zone

IN THE HIGH CQ¥.§}{'§' OF KARNATM-'LA AT EARGALORE W.P.}ée_é7'l9 OF 2908
5

nor disposed of. Therefere, in View of non consideration

of the request of petitieners, they have approeejw-.§i*’

Court by presenting this writ petition, seeking

refiefs as stated supra.

3. I have heard learned ae,riee£i:ig’v

petitioners and learned ‘e”ee’neel eepeerifig H for
respendents. ‘ M. ‘ ‘ IV

4. After careful perL1e’:_-::!..o;f’v._Vti’ée urged in the

writ petition té:|§en_.. b3f~vt’i;se:r$pendents 2 and

3 in theifv _it_–“efr}ergee that, in fact, the

first rafiendent’ te act upon and take

V decieigm’ in puresgriee 0f the reprmervtationlremindere

petifieners and other members and

tfiereaffef ire have forwarded the same tn the Chief

T cf the Karnataka State Board of Wekf te

«–..ane to take appmpriete decision. Keeping the

of petitioners; in abeyance and net taking decieien

V fee te whether the petitienere genuine members of the

LN °E’!’i!§ i”‘§!€}.%i ‘i.?f.3{}!~’€.’i’ E)? !<JLR§'EA'1'Ai§A A1' BANGALORE W.P.Ne.<':'? 19 UP' 2008

IN THE EIIGEE CGURT OF KARNATAKA AT B33'-EGALGRE \V-P.N0.(S'7I 9 017 2088
6

third respondent or not and whether the semnd

respondent is functicning within the parameten….”$§i:¢i f V.

consanance with the relevant provisions (if

Rates, is not justifiable. Fumaer, &%:he%%kstand& &&at7

respondents in their statement’ af objve-:-gficns .

functioning as per the tfia and
Rifles and there is no ‘éh’3%..:’p¢oyisions of the
Ruim and the.vg¢’n;§rai:”‘iisé§fi§:: ‘Jbeen in fact
caiied for ai’z_;é~’,sfI;1r:3f:tV:.:5§9V:Vf’=.-mbers. and their

men1be¥vf§;hép’.A fi*é’.5s_.b;eaén’«;fé§tt1:§.n;atéd and therefere, they

were not §’iai}:’ed fo’r– it appears there is some

disputig ” regardifig vVfheV: quevstion as to whether the

_actuaily the members of the third

Of not and flruis is a quwtion of fact to

The flue first respcmdent in consonance with

‘ ” ffigjpresentatien submitted by petitianws and the stand

‘ : gf’V_’:?@pczrzdents 2 and 3 befor the first rmparzdent.

/
/

LN am; 52:51: a_:g:su;<:.':' 01* i<;A§{£*éA'1'Aj?19 up 2903

IN THE HEGEE COURT OF K;*sR}-EATAKA AT BANGALORE W.?.}i0.6?2 9 OF 2068

3

5. Therefore, without expressing any opin§§:s§”::§1

merits of this mse, the writ petition med by

disposed of with a direction to r$p9n6ents”té{ “~ 2

the representation date.-ti 26%;’,

Novamber 2067 and the refifiger “£ii:a’:Vt:¥ed _VV1 $if’A”«:._y:;ia:2.L2′:;ary
2008 vide Annexure K by .;.§¢=;-tit:§s2n.e2E:§*s and
dispasé: c:-f fine same, at any
rate, within a the date ef
recaipt ef cogbéjy é’§.:i§f63’d)” considered and
€3iS[30E’:Bt’._i !1}”f ,V to petitioners and

aiso rmpéézdénm 2. a§:f§€i’.Jtake apprepriate decision in

_ strict?’¢;;x’3:*ra;f;§iarue::iz:»;..V”thev.f relevant provisiom of the Wakf

‘4

SCI/-9
Iudgfi

if’? ‘§’;Hi”:3 §’§i(5H. ‘-Z3f}€}R.1′{.3!’ !§AR?~éA”i’AK_A A1′ BANGALORE W’.P.No.6′?1§ DE 35(}{)8