[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Syed Shah Kaleemullah Hussaini Al ... vs The State Of Telangana on 2 April, 2026
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.10114 OF 2026
DATE: 02.04.2026
Between :
Syed Shah Kaleemullah Hussaini A1 Quadri
... Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal
Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat at BRKR
Bhavan, Hyderabad, and four others.
... Respondents.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:
"Issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the
action of the respondents in not considering the
representation/application dated 24.03.2026 vide application
No.15212403261403209056 seeking permission for event
bandhobust for the upcoming Urs E Shareef procession of
Hazrat Syenda Najaf Ali Shah A1 Hassani Wal Hassani A1
Quadri (RA), Balapur, Hyderabad, schedule to be held on dt:
06.04.2026 from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. as illegal, arbitrary,
violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India
and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently
to direct the respondents to consider the aforesaid
representation/application dated 24.03.2026, thereby
providing Police bandhobust to the petitioner for the
upcoming Urs E Shareef processin of Hazrat Syedna Najaf
A1 Shah A1 Hassani Wal Hussaini A1 Quadri (RA), Balapur,
Hyderabad scheduled on 06.04.2026 from 6 p.m to 10
p.m...."
2. Heard Mr. L. Ram Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and
the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for Respondent
No.1/State.
3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent
police authorities have failed to consider the petitioner's representation
dated 24.03.2026, submitted vide Application
No.15212403261403209056, seeking permission to conduct the Urs-e-
Shareef procession of Hazrat Syedna Najaf Ali Shah Al-Hassani Wal
Hussaini Al-Quadri (RA) at Balapur, Hyderabad, scheduled on
06.04.2026 from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Aggrieved by such inaction,
the present petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions.
3.2. He further submits that in an identical situation in the year 2025,
this Court was pleased to direct the respondent police to provide
necessary bandobust for the said religious procession. The petitioner
complied with all conditions imposed therein, and the procession was
conducted peacefully without any untoward incident. It is further
contended that on three subsequent occasions, the respondent police
themselves granted permission for similar processions. However, in the
present instance, despite the petitioner's representation, the authorities
have remained silent, thereby compelling the petitioner to invoke the
jurisdiction of this Court, especially in view of the imminent date of the
procession.
4. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, on
instructions, submits that there exist two rival groups, and there is a
reasonable apprehension of breach of law and order, therefore,
permission was not granted. It is also contended that the Touliyat
Committee, which administers the affairs of the Dargah, is the
appropriate authority through whom such requisitions ought to be
routed, and hence the present petition is not maintainable.
Nevertheless, it is fairly submitted that the respondent police shall
abide by any directions issued by this Court.
5. I have perused the material available on record and carefully
considered the submissions.
6. It is well settled that the right to hold religious processions is
protected under Articles 25 and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India,
subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of
Police, (1973) 1 SCC 227 held that the State cannot arbitrarily deny
permission for public assemblies on public streets, though it may
regulate the same in the interest of public order. Similarly, in Ramlila
Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India, (2012) 5 SCC 1, it
was reiterated that peaceful assembly is a fundamental right, and
restrictions must be reasonable and proportionate.
7. In the present case, it is not in dispute that on earlier occasions,
permission was granted and the procession was conducted peacefully.
Mere apprehension of disturbance, without cogent material, cannot be
a ground to completely deny permission; rather, it necessitates
regulatory measures.
8. Accordingly, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent police
authorities to permit the petitioner to participate in and conduct the Urs-
e-Shareef procession scheduled on 06.04.2026 from 6:00 p.m. to
10:00 p.m., and to provide necessary police bandobust to ensure
maintenance of law and order.
9. Nonetheless, such permission shall be subject to the condition
that the petitioner, along with all participating groups, shall strictly
comply with the conditions and guidelines that may be prescribed by
the police authorities. The procession shall be conducted in a peaceful
and orderly manner, without causing any obstruction or disturbance to
public order. In the event of any untoward incident, the respondent
police shall be at liberty to take appropriate action, in accordance with
law, against the persons responsible, including the petitioner, if found
liable.
10. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is accordingly
disposed of.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
Date: 02.04.2026
MRKR
Note: Registry is directed to serve a copy of the order to the respondent
police authorities through the learned Government Pleader for Home
forthwith.
