Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Asthan-E-Khadri Trust, Bangalore And ... vs Karnataka State Board Of Wakfs, ... on 8 February, 2000

Mulukutla Pochaiah, S/O Lingaiah, Aged ... vs The Union Of India, Rep.By The Project ... on 27 September, 2016

21. At this stage, I am also reminded of question posed by Sri Justice P.N.Bhagwati (as he then was) in Khadri and others Vs. State of Bihar and observations of Justice J S Verma (as he then was) in Nilabati Behera Vs State of Orissa. Justice Bhagwati posed this question: Why should the Court not be prepared to forge new tools and devise new remedies for the purpose of vindicating the most precious of the precious fundamental right to life and personal liberty?. Justice Verma said, The primary source of the public law proceedings stems from the prerogative writs and the courts have, therefore, to evolve new tools to give relief in public law by molding it according to the situation with a view to preserve and protect the Rule of Law.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - P N Rao - Full Document

Puli Raju, Warangal Dist. vs Prl. Secy. H Fw Dept. Hyd 4 Others on 18 February, 2019

18. At this stage, I am also reminded of question posed by Justice P.N. Bhagwati (as he then was) in Khadri and others v. State of Bihar (supra). He asked "Why should the Court not be prepared 'to forge new tools and devise new remedies' for the purpose of vindicating the most precious of the precious fundamental right to life and personal liberty'?.
Telangana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - P N Rao - Full Document

M. Ansar Baig vs Karnataka State Board Of Wakf on 7 February, 2017

10. He submits that the orders in question appear to have been passed in respect of an adjacent Wakf, namely, Hazarath Maqadhoom Jhani Dargha Masjid Committee. He also relies on this Court's decision in the case of ASTHAN-E-KHADRI TRUST AND OTHERS v. KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKFS AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2000 KAR 801. Paragraph No.16 read out by him is as follows:
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A Hinchigeri - Full Document

Sri. Akbar Basha Mujawar vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2024

2. Sri. B. Sharanabasva learned counsel for petitioner submitted that great grandson of Mujawar Badehuchhu Sab, who according to petitioner was notified Mutavalli of Huchh Saheb Ashoorkhana (Panje Masjid) (Sunni) at Krishnanagar of Sandur Taluk, Ballari. It was submitted that said WAQF was notified under Section 5(2) WAQF Act 1954 under notification gazetted on 17.10.1964. It was submitted that during his lifetime, said Mujawar continued Mujawarship, and thereafter, petitioner's grand father continued Mujawarship. It was -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:4657 WP No. 105659 of 2018 submitted that since petitioner's father Mujawar Vali Basha had predeceased his grandfather, after death of petitioner's grandfather, petitioner had continued Mujawarship from year 2015. Such being case, without issuing any notice, or without any just cause, respondents passed order dated 23.07.2018 at Annexure-F assuming direct management of WAQF, and appointing Tahsildar, Sandur as administrator along with an advisory committee. Said order was passed under Section 65 of the WAQF Act 1995. It was submitted that impugned order was contrary to law declared by this Court in case of Asthan-E- Khadri Trust and Others Vs. Karnataka State Board of WAQFs and others reported in 2001 (2) KLJ 509, as well as being in violation of principles of natural justice, and therefore, sought for its quashing. It was submitted that petitioner, being great grandson of original Mutawalli, was an interested person falling within definition of Section 3(k)(ii) of WAQF Act and therefore, was an interested person. Besides same, this Court had held that power under Section 65 of WAQF Act was to be exercised in rarest of rare cases, and after recording satisfaction about two aspects, i) that there is no suitable person available for appointment of mutawalli or ii) where -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:4657 WP No. 105659 of 2018 Board is satisfied that filling up of vacancy would be prejudicial to interest of WAQF, neither of which were absent in impugned order. On above grounds, learned counsel sought for allowing writ petition.
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - R V Hosmani - Full Document

The Managing Committee Of vs The Karnataka State Board Of Auqaf on 25 September, 2019

In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in 'ASTHAN-E-KHADRI TRUST AND OTHERS VS. KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WKFS AND OTHERS', ILR 2000 KAR 801. Attention of this Court has been invited to the finding recorded in para 18 of the aforesaid decision. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the term of the petitioner has expired, therefore, the petitioner has no right to be heard.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A Aradhe - Full Document

Sri Sikandar Babu vs The Karnataka State Board Of Auqaf on 31 October, 2022

4. Learned counsel for petitioner, in support of his contentions, would seek to rely on the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court reported in ILR 2000 KAR 801 in the case of Asthan-E-Khadri Trust and others vs. Karnataka State Board of Wakfs. The said judgment, though dealt with Section 65 of the Waqf Act, 1995, was a case where the Managing Committee of the Wakf was superseded by appointment of an Administrator. It is in those circumstances the Court considered the application without going into the alternative remedy of filing a revision before the Government. Therefore, the said judgment would not lend any assistance to the case of the petitioner.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document
1