Masjid-E-Tawheed vs Sub-Inspector Of Police on 14 March, 2016

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Masjid-E-Tawheed vs Sub-Inspector Of Police on 14 March, 2016

Bench: A S Bopanna

                            1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA

       WRIT PETITION No.50807/2015 (GM-POLICE)


BETWEEN:

MASJID-E-TAWHEED
(AHLE HADEES)
UMAR BAGH EXTENSION
J.P.NAGAR POST
BENGALURU - 560 078.

REP. BY ITS' SECRETARY
SRI.NAZIM PASHA,
S/O SRI.ABDUL JABBAR
AGED ABOUT 53 YRS.,
C-9, IN CONVERTED SURVEY NO.67/1
JARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE
(UMAR BAGH COLONY)
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.
                                      ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI .JANARDHANA G., ADV.)


AND:


1.     SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
       KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT
       POLICE STATION
       BENGALURU - 560 078.

2.     THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
       INFANTRY ROAD
       BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                     ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR.A.PATIL, AGA.)
                             2

     THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO PREVENT THE PETITIONER-
MEMBERS FROM CARRYING ON ITS RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES
INCLUDING OFFERING PRAYERS IN THE SCHEDULE
PROPERTY.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondents not to prevent the petitioner and oppose them from carrying on its religious activities including offering prayers in the schedule property.

2. The petitioner claims to be a Registered Trust established by 'Ahle-Hadees', a sub-sect in the Sunni Muslim Community and contends that there is no bar for their activities as their existence has been recognized by the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said position and the petitioner-Trust through their members carrying on the lawful religious activities, the first respondent is 3 interfering with the activities of the petitioners without there being any legal right in that regard. The petitioner claims that in view of such interference, the petitioner had also approached the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf. The Karnataka State Board of Auqaf through their letter dated 05.10.2015 addressed to the Police Inspector has informed the Police about the lawful activities of the petitioners. Despite the same, since according to the petitioners there is interference, they are before this Court.

3. Learned Government Advocate on instructions would submit that certain other sub-sects had approached the Police claiming certain illegal activities by the petitioners. It is contended that the petitioners were attempting to put up construction without due approval and in that circumstance, the Police had sought to maintain the law and order in the area.

4. Taking note of the submission on behalf of the respondents, what is necessary to be indicated is that insofar as the existence of the petitioner, the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf is stated to have recognized the same as the petitioner has relied on the letter dated 05.10.2015. Therefore insofar as the religious activities, if any person/sub-sect or group approaches the respondents, the appropriate course for the respondents would be to direct them to the State Board of Auqaf and register their complaint so that the said Board shall look into the same and take action in accordance with law.

5. Insofar as the construction that is attempted to put up by the petitioners, it is needless to mention that the said construction if any, should be made only with due approval from the competent authority.

6. Therefore, if all these aspects of the matter are kept in view, the respondents in any event shall not interfere with the lawful activities of the petitioner. 5 However, if the complaint made by any person/sub-sect or group indicates that there is likelihood of commission of a cognizable offence and there being disturbance of the law and order situation, certainly a duty is cast on the respondents to prevent the same and bring the situation under control and thereafter would take action in accordance with law. Further, if there is any other legal reasons to prevent the petitioners in that regard, the respondents would inform the reasons to the petitioner in writing so that the petitioners can avail their remedies in accordance with law. Barring above, the lawful religious activities conducted by the petitioners shall not be interfered with by the respondents.

With the said observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE hrp/bms

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court