Telangana High Court
Ghouseazam Dargah, vs The State Of Telangana, Represented By ... on 7 January, 2020
Author: P. Keshava Rao
Bench: P. Keshava Rao
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. KESHAVA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.34036 of 2014
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. The prayer sought in the writ petition is as under:-
"...to issue a Writ, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein particularly respondent No.2 and 3, not to interfere into matters of Hazrath Gouse Azam Datagir Rahmatullah Kay Darga Committee which consist of Darga, Arabic Madarsa and Masijid-e-Ghouse situated at, Rajiv Nagar, Gautam Nagar, Dubba, Nizambad, except in accordance to law, not to take law into their own hands, to act in accordance with law, not to infringe our fundamental and legal rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution of India and pass such other and further orders as are just and necessary in the circumstances of the case."
3. Learned Government Pleader placed on record the written instructions issued by the Station House Officer, III Town Police Station, Nizamabad.
4. From a perusal of the said written instructions, it is revealed that the area in question is thickly populated by persons belonging to other religion and there have been widespread protests from other community over using of loud speaker from the Mosque in question. In view of that there has been communal tension in the area. To prevent any law and order problem and any possible communal clashes in the area, the 3rd respondent advised the Management Committee of the Mosque in question to desist from using of loud speakers from the Mosque and also posted a police picket in the area near the Mosque to maintain law and order. It is specifically 2 mentioned in the written instructions that the respondent police never interfered with the religious activities of the community nor attending of prayers in the said Mosque. It is specifically denied that on 04.11.2014, the 3rd respondent detained in the petitioner on the police station for hours together. The respondent police never infringed any fundamental or legal rights of the petitioner as alleged. Except taking necessary steps in advising the Managing Committee not to use loud speaker and deputing the police picket in the area to prevent the law and order problem, the respondent police never interfered in the activities of the petitioner in public interest.
5. In view of the specific averments of the respondents that they are not interfering in the activities of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that no further cause would survive in the writ petition and the same is liable to be closed.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ P. KESHAVA RAO, J 7th January 2020 mar