AGA SYED MOHD RIZVI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two writ petitioners, who claim to be the. religious heads with authority to settle disputes, interse the people residing in Blocks of Suru and Sankoo area of District Kargil, in matters mostly of faith and other mandane aspects of the life, according to tenants of Quran and Sharia, pray that the respondents, Government of Jammu and Kashmir and its District Officials seated at and of Kargil, be issued Writ/ Order/Direction to respect the decisions given by the two petitioners as such religious heads and further to let them continue to be perform. The two petitioners claim ,that their ancestors were also so authorized by the residents of the said areas on 13 Mahi Chait 1947 Bk. and thereafter on their death, in 1990 A.D they have been so authorized by the residents of the two blocks, Annexure -A and B, photostat copies of hand written alleged authority, is placed on record.

(2.) THE counsel is heard. The question whether the two petitioners have been appointed on succession as religious heads is a question of fact apart from whether under Muslim Personal Law the office of religious head is hereditary or elective or neither. In this case the main question noticeable is that in the whole writ petition at no place even a single instance is given to show how and in what manner petitioners edicts have a force of law and if so, if as such edict has been at all violated and in case such edict has no force of law, then how actionable right accrues to petitioners. The writ petition runs in omnibus terms. It is too generalized to speak of breach of any fundamental or legal right of petitioners or failure to enforce any legal obligation on the part of the respondents. The questions of faith of a particular religious community or a micro dimensional sect of that community, in absence of any statutory backing, can hardly be a matter for the writ court to pronounce upon. The alleged aggrieved party, the petitioners here are not entitled to move writ court as none of their legal right/ interest is infracted much less state having failed to enforce any obligation cast on it by law. If in any matter breach of legal right or infraction of an interest on one hand and /or failure of enforcement of legal duty on the other hand is alleged then a definite positive case has to be made out thereto and the basis therefore has to be laid in the writ petition pleading. Writ jurisdiction cannot be resorted to investigate facts or to collect evidence or to convert the proceedings into a roving enquiry. Ex -facie petitioners are seeking seal and authority of court for then personal edicts, performance of religious rites and ceremonies and that too independently of an office or right to property. But all this does not confer any legal actionable right on them. Equally respondents are not legally obligated to honour it as legal mandate. What is claimed and prayed for has no backing of law. There is nothing on record to show that there is any legal footage to the petitioners case. No foundation therefore is found in the writ petition. Court has no control over faith and conscience of a person or segment of a populace. Writ/direction cannot be issued at the mere askance for.

(3.) IN result for the above reason, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.