SAYED MOHAMMAD ALI HUSSAINI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-1992-8-7
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on August 21,1992

SAYED MOHAMMED ALI HUSSAINI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

JAYAPRAKASH S VASTRAD AND ORS VS. COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE AND ORS [LAWS(KAR)-2013-4-281] [REFERRED]
PALI CENTRAL CO VS. SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA [LAWS(RAJ)-1993-9-87] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)When the Review Petition came up, the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Mr. Mirza Munawwar AH Baig, Mr. S. Satyanarayana Prasad, who filed the Writ Appeal by seeking leave of the Court and also the learned Government Pleader for Education, have represented that the Writ Petition itself can be heard and disposed of on merits. As such, we have taken up the Writ Petition itself.
(2.)This is a glaring case of abuse of process of this Court by invoking Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The sole complaint is against two persons, namely, Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin Quadri and Dr. Syed Tajuddin Quadri, who are the sons of Late Syed Shah Qadar Mohiuddin Quadri Saheb. The said Syed Shah Qader Mohiuddin Quadri Saheb was the founder of the institution in question, namely, A.K.M. Oriental College at Kachiguda, Hyderabad. The same was founded in the year 1966 and was endowed and it became a Wakf property governed by the provisions of Wakf Act, 1954. The said founder and endower died during the year 1967 leaving behind him two sons, namely, Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin Quadri and Dr. Syed Tajuddin Quadri who constitute the management. It is the allegation of the Writ Petitioner who is the Principal, employed by the said management, that there was gross mismanagement on the part of the said management comprising the said two individuals, namely, Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin Quadri and Dr. Syed Tajuddin Quadri. It is alleged that they had not only mismanaged the institution, but had also harassed the staff, both teaching and non-teaching, including the Writ Petitioner, that they did not take care of basic amenities, like electricity, water and that the Premises where the Educational Institution is being run is quite unsafe, particularly, for lady students coming for evening session. It is also his complaint that his salary even though due and payable to him was unjustly withheld particularly for the period from 1-9-1991 onwards. Having made such an accusation of very serious nature, including that of misappropriation, the Writ Petitioner had willfully and deliberately not impleaded the above two persons as parties to the Writ Petition, obviously for getting adjudication and obtaining orders condemning them behind their back. Such an attitude of a party approaching this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India should be highly deprecated and that can be the sole ground for dismissal of the Writ Petition for non-joinder of necessary parties. When the party seeks an equitable relief from this Court and particularly, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the said party should come with clean hands. We have to say emphatically that the Writ Petitioner has not approached this Court with lean hands. Knowing fully well that even though the above affected persons were necessary parties, he had not made them parties deliberately and willfully. This Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of non-joinder of necessary parties.
(3.)That apart, even on merits, there is absolutely no cause for ventilating grievance of the Writ Petitioner in the Writ Petition in the manner it is framed. If there is any mismanagement, there is ample power in the Statutory Authorities, be it under the A.P. Education Act or Wakf Act, 1954 to enquire into the matter and take appropriate action. It is not the case of the Writ Petitioner that there is negligence on the part of the said Authorities in concluding the disciplinary proceedings which have been initiated against the above two persons constituting the management.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.