HC Dismisses Pleas against Shahi Masjid Khateeb Appointment

The judge junked allegations of mismanagement and illegality in the impugned appointment as unsubstantiated. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by M. Md. Dastageer Ali Khan who sought removal of Dr. Ahsan Al Hamoomi from the post of Khateeb/Imam.

The petitioner alleged that the appointment of Dr. Hamoomi was based on heredity and not merit. He further accused him of failing to perform religious duties, mismanaging mosque property, and unlawfully altering portions of the premises. He also contended that authorities failed to act on his legal notice dated October 31, 2023.

The Court noted that the authorities conducted a detailed inquiry following the complaint. The inquiry concluded that Dr. Hamoomi was appointed in accordance with the prescribed procedure under the relevant Government Order Rejecting the allegation of hereditary appointment, the judge observed that although the father of the Respondent and grandfather previously served in similar roles, his selection was based on merit and qualifications.

The Court also accepted the explanation that a Khateeb is primarily responsible for delivering sermons and is not mandatorily required to lead all five daily prayers. On the issue of alleged misuse of mosque premises, the judge recorded that no evidence was produced to substantiate claims of illegal partition or personal use.

The official inquiry found that the disputed area, Niaz Khana No. 2, was being used for Quran classes and women’s prayers, and that CCTV cameras and attendance registers were already in place. Importantly, the Court noted that no complaints had been received from worshippers regarding the functioning of the Khateeb, even during peak periods such as Fridays and Ramadan Concluding that the petitions were “founded largely on assertions without substantiating material,” the Court dismissed both writ petitions.

HC grants bails in SC Case against Overseas Consultant

The Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail to an overseas education consultant in a cheating and exploitation case, holding that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not prima facie attract the offences invoked under SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.

The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Amand Harshavardhan. According to the prosecution, the accused, runs an overseas education consultancy, which allegedly collected large sums of money from a married woman, belonging to the Dalit community, on the promise of securing admission abroad. It was further alleged that he later developed a physical relationship with her on false assurances, exploited her, and issued threats to her and her family.

The complainant also accused him of financial cheating involving payments made for education and travel. The defence argued that the allegations were false and contended that the complainant was already married and living with her husband, making certain charges inapplicable.

Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the case was filed with the intention to harass the petitioner. The court observed that prima facie the allegations did not attract the invoked offences and accordingly granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.

A two judge panel of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ plea objecting to the adoption of a formal civil court style procedure by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Sangareddy, in dealing with a consumer complaint.

The panel of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar is dealing with a writ plea filed by Kesanakurthy Srinivasa Rao. The petitioner contended that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and the rules framed thereunder contemplate a summary and less formal procedure, and not one akin to proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure.

It was argued that the District Commission was following a rigid procedure by taking affidavit evidence, marking documents and insisting on written arguments. Relying on Rule 26 of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020, the petitioner contended that the Consumer Commissions are required follow a simplified procedure consistent with the object of speedy adjudication.

It was argued that upon expiry of this 45 day period, if the opposite party does not respond, the Commission ought to treat it as non-appearance and proceed ex parte on the basis of the complainant’s evidence.

It was contended that instead, the Commission recorded forfeiture of the right to file written version and continued the proceedings in a manner akin to civil trials, which was contrary to the statutory scheme. The panel made clear that pending the writ petition the matter can be proceeded with by the Tribunal and posted it for further hearing.