Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.G.S.KAMAL
Muhiyudeen Juma Masjid, Rep. by its President Shri K. Ismail S/o Ibrahim – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. seeking quashing and direction for action. (Para 1) |
| 2. factual context of construction and complaint. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. interim order preventing escalation. (Para 6) |
| 4. petitioner's argument against notice validity. (Para 7) |
| 5. respondent's defense against petitioner's claims. (Para 8) |
| 6. court's review of alleged evidence and justifications. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 7. quashing of notice due to lack of justification. (Para 13) |
| 8. order for consideration of representations. (Para 14 , 15) |
ORDER :
1. The petitioner-Institution is before this Court seeking following reliefs :
(i) issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 29.06.2022 in No.ASAM/SHAMA/CR-133/16-17/160/189 passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Minority Welfare Department, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada District, copy of which is produced at Annexure-A.
(ii) issuance of writ of mandamus directing the Assistant Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Engineering Division, Bantwal Sub Division, Bantwal, Dakshina to consider the representation dated 28.02.2022 copy of which is produced at Annexure-H.
(iii) issuance any other writs or direction to meet the interest of justice and equity.
2. The petitioner-Inst
Notices impacting rights must be based on substantiated evidence and proper due process. Allegations without foundation cannot justify administrative action or inaction.
A litigant must approach the court with clean hands; submission of fabricated documents leads to dismissal of the petition.
The court found that municipal notices must cite legal authority to be valid, emphasizing jurisdictional compliance under the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955.
The court highlighted the importance of adhering to building permissions and procedures outlined under municipal law in construction matters.
since no modalities have been set forth for such use. It is clear that as on date, there is no clear-cut protocol as to who will control the utilization of the building or the community purposes for ....
Decision of Tribunal to determine is not liable to be questioned in proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution unless at least it is shown to be fully unsupported by evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
