Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 327 (UTT)

MOHD. FARRUKH AHMAD v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-06-29

K.M.JOSEPH, U.C.DHYANI

body2015
JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:- “Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to provide adequate safety and security to the petitioner. 2. Briefly put the case of the petitioner is as follows:- It is a property of Wakf, which is registered as Wakf No. 659 by the order of the Chairman, Uttarakhand Wakh Board and Managing Committee is there, which stands extended till 12.11.2017. It is stated that respondent No.4 Radha Swami Satsang Vyas is having ill eyes towards the said Wakf property and respondent No.4 filed a civil suit without impleading Wakf No.659 and obtained decree in respect of the said property. Petitioner is the Secretary of the Wakf. He has filed recall application. It is stated that because the petitioner is doing Pairvi on behalf of the Wakf as such the followers and the members of respondent No.4 are against the petitioner and are constantly giving serious threats. There is reference to an earlier writ petition on behalf of the Wakf and it is stated that the Wakf is about to approach the Wakf Tribunal. There is also reference to unknown persons, most probably related with 4th respondent, who are trying to cause harm to the petitioner. Petitioner moved representation (Annexure 5) before the various authorities. Another representation moved by the petitioner is produced as Annexure 6. The followers and the members of respondent No.4 are causing hindrance in visit of pilgrims on the property in question. There is Annexure 8 letter which is written by the Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board to the District Magistrate/Additional Wakf Commissioner. Petitioner made Annexures 9, 10 and 11 representations and is before us. 3. We heard the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner Shri M.S. Pal and Shri Rakesh Thapliyal on behalf of the private respondent. We also heard the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. 4. The learned Deputy Advocate General would submit that actually proceedings were initiated under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the order has been passed. Shri Rakesh Thapliyal would, in fact, submit that the suit has been decreed in their favour and it has been found that there is no Mosque. 4. The learned Deputy Advocate General would submit that actually proceedings were initiated under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the order has been passed. Shri Rakesh Thapliyal would, in fact, submit that the suit has been decreed in their favour and it has been found that there is no Mosque. In the circumstances of this case, we do not think that we should entertain this writ petition in the exercise of extra ordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We record the submission of the learned Deputy Advocate General and close the matter.