Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Mohammad Anwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Mohammad Anwar vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jan 04, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1040247

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mohammad Anwar

Advocate Shri. Ahadulla Usmani, Shri. Usmani

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Advocate Shri. Samim Rahman

Excerpt

w.p.no.22021/12 04-01-2013 shri ahadulla usmani, learned counsel for the petitioner. shri samim rahman for the caveator/respondent nos.3 and 4 the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the show cause notice annexure p-1 dated 13-12-2012, issued by the respondent no.2 m.p.waqf board. shri samim rahman appearing for respondent nos.3 and 4 submits that at present only a show cause notice under section 54 of the waqf act, 1995 has been issued and the petitioner instead of showing cause and raising objections before the competent authority has rushed to this court directly. even though shri usmani, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to emphasize that a show cause notice has been issued contrary the requirement of section 54 of the waqf act, but the fact remains that for the present only a show cause notice is issued and even in a public interest litigation, the division bench of this court has given liberty to the waqf board to decide the dispute after holding proper procedure. considering the nature of dispute and as at present only a show cause notice is issued , the petitioner can raise all the grounds before the competent authority who has issued a show cause notice, it is not appropriate for this court to interfere. that apart the petitioner also has statutory remedy of appeal before the tribunal, therefore, i see no reason to interfere at this interlocutory stage when only a show cause notice is issued. granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all the objections which may be permissible in 2 reply to the show cause notice and finding no case for interference at this stage the petition is dismissed. accordingly, with the aforesaid liberty, the petition stands dismissed. (rajendra menon) judge hsp

Full Judgment

W.P.NO.22021/12 04-01-2013 Shri Ahadulla Usmani, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Samim Rahman for the caveator/respondent Nos.3 and 4 The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the show cause notice Annexure P-1 dated 13-12-2012, issued by the respondent no.2 M.P.Waqf Board.

Shri Samim Rahman appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that at present only a show cause notice under Section 54 of the Waqf Act, 1995 has been issued and the petitioner instead of showing cause and raising objections before the competent authority has rushed to this court directly.

Even though Shri Usmani, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to emphasize that a show cause notice has been issued contrary the requirement of Section 54 of the Waqf Act, but the fact remains that for the present only a show cause notice is issued and even in a public interest litigation, the Division Bench of this court has given liberty to the Waqf Board to decide the dispute after holding proper procedure.

Considering the nature of dispute and as at present only a show cause notice is issued , the petitioner can raise all the grounds before the competent authority who has issued a show cause notice, it is not appropriate for this court to interfere.

That apart the petitioner also has statutory remedy of appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, I see no reason to interfere at this interlocutory stage when only a show cause notice is issued.

Granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all the objections which may be permissible in 2 reply to the show cause notice and finding no case for interference at this stage the petition is dismissed.

Accordingly, with the aforesaid liberty, the petition stands dismissed.

(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE hsp

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial