Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
S. Md. Tahirulla vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 10 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Writ Appeal No.163 of 2022
(Through virtual mode)
S. Md. Tahirulla,
S/o. late Dr. Syed Shah Nazarullah Basha Khadri,
Aged 34 years, Muthavalli,
Dargah Syed Shah Ali Murad (Sunni),
Kadapa Town, Kadapa. ...Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Secretariat,
Velagapudi, Guntur District & others. ... Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. G.Ramesh Babu
Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : G.P. for Home
Counsel for respondent No.4 : Mr. Kareemulla,
Standing Counsel for Waqf Board
Counsel for respondent Nos.5 & 6 : Mr. N. Harinath
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Dt: 10.02.2022
(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
This writ appeal has been preferred challenging the order dated
13.12.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.27786 of 2021
in which petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to
provide Police Protection/ Bandobasthu to the petitioner / Muthavalli to
conduct Annual Ursu Celebrations scheduled to be held from 14.12.2021
to 18.12.2021 at Dargah Syed Shah All Murad (Sunni), Kadapa Town.
2. During pendency of the writ petition, prayer for impleadment
moved by the unofficial respondents was allowed and they were also
heard by the writ court. While disposing of the writ petition, faced with
the rival submissions as to the entitlement to manage and celebrate Ursu,
learned single Judge has observed that the petitioner and its members
and others, who belong to Muslim community, has got every right under
law to celebrate Ursu independently and similarly, even the impleaded
respondents also got every right under law to celebrate the said Ursu.
Resultantly, the learned single Judge has held that both the parties are
entitled to celebrate Ursu independently.
3. Mr. G. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the appellant/ writ
petitioner submits that although the period for which Police Protection was
sought is over, making the writ petition infructuous as on today, limited
ground of challenge to the impugned order in this writ appeal is that
separate dispute preferred by the impleaded respondents is pending
before the Civil Court wherein the issue concerning right or entitlement of
celebrating Ursu exclusively is to be adjudicated and the observations of
the learned single Judge may have effect on the adjudication of the said
dispute.
4. Without recording any finding as to whether or not the Civil Court
has jurisdiction to issue any declaration in this regard, having regard to
the nature of dispute and in view of the fact that the writ petition was
filed seeking Police Protection to conduct Annual Ursu Celebrations only,
but not for seeking exclusive right to celebrate Ursu, we observe that the
right / entitlement of either parties to celebrate Ursu shall be decided by
the jurisdictional judicial forum in accordance with law, without being
influenced by the observations made by the learned single Judge.
5. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. Pending
miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J
HS
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
W.A.No.163 of 2022
(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
Dt: 10.02.2022
HS
