Kerala High Court
Veluthamanal Muslim Jama-Ath vs Kerala State Wakf Board on 7 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 21719 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 VELUTHAMANAL MUSLIM JAMA-ATH
AGED 56 YEARS
THODIYOOR P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
NAZEER K.J., AGED 56, THAIKOOTTATHIL HOUSE,
THODIYOOR, KARUNAGAPPALLY., PIN - 690523
2 NOUSHAJ
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O.SUBAIRKUTTY,
SHEEJA MANZIL, KALLERIBHAGAM, KARUNAGAPPALLY,
SECRETARY, VELUTHAMANAL MUSLIM JAMA-ATH., PIN -
690523
BY ADVS.ADV.R T. RAJAN
MOHAMMED SADIQUE.T.A
T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ
K.P.MAJEED
K.M.MOHAMMED YUSUFF (M-1323)
SHANKAR V.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
VIP ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682017
2 IZHAQUE KUTTY
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O.MOHAMMED KUNJU, SHEMI MANZIL,
KALLELIBHAGAM, KARUNAGAPPALLI, KOLLAM., PIN -
690519
3 E.M.ASHRAF
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O.IBRAHIM KUTTY,
PALLTHKATTIL, IRATTAKULANGARA, KARUNAGAPPALLY,
KOLLAM., PIN - 690523
WP© 21719/22
-2-
4 NOORUDEENKUTTY.S.
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, KANIYAMKUNNEL VEEDU,
VALIYAVILAYIL, KALLELIBHAGAM P.O.,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM., PIN - 690519
5 K.ABDUL RAZAK
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O.KOYAKUTTY, REHNA MANZIL,
MUZHAKODI, THODIYOOR, KARUNAGAPPALLY., PIN -
690523
6 MUHAMMADALI
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.NOORUDEEN, OTTAYIL , MUZHAKODI,
THODIYOOR, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM., PIN - 690523
7 K.K.LATHEEFKUTTY
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O.KOYAKUTTY,
RUKSANA MANZIL, EDAKKULANGARA, KARUNAGAPPALLY,
KOLLAM, PIN - 690523
8 NISHAD
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.IBRAHIM KUTTY,
KARAVILAYIL, MUZHANGODI, THODIYOOR P.O.,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM., PIN - 691523
9 SUDHEER
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.JAMALUDEEN,
VALIYAVILAYIL, KALLELIBHAGAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY,
KOLLAM., PIN - 690519
BY ADV Jamsheed Hafiz
OTHER PRESENT:
SC JAMSHEED HAFIZ., ADV BHANU THILAK FOR R2 TO R5
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP© 21719/22
-3-
S.V.BHATTI
& BASANT BALAJI, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.21719 of 2022
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 7th day of July 2022)
Basant Balaji J.,
The petitioners filed this Writ Petition with the
following prayers.
"i. To call for the records leading to Ext.P1 order and
set aside the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction.
ii. To issue a writ of mandamus, or any other
appropriate writ order or direction directing to the first
respondent to take up the file relating to O.P.No.
100/2021 and proceed the same in accordance with
law.
iii. To stay the operation and implementation of
Ext.P1, pending disposal of the Writ Petition."
WP© 21719/22
2. The first petitioner is a public Wakf registered with
the first respondent. The respondent Nos.1 to 7 filed OP
No.100 of 2021 for a declaration that the petitioners therein
are the members of the Managing Committee elected in
2018 and that the respondents are to be removed from the
committee and to conduct the election as per the bylaws.
3. On receipt of the notice, the petitioners entered an
appearance before the Wakf Board and filed a detailed
Objection. Thereafter, the O.P. was posted to 23.8.2022.
According to the petitioners, their counsel Shri.T.H.Abdul
Azeez received an order dated 7.6.2022 by registered post
on 25.6.2022, from the first respondent Wakf Board. The
said order is placed on record as Ext.P1. As per Ext.P1, it
can be seen that the O.P. was advanced to 7.6.2022 on the
basis of the Advance petition filed as I.A. No.104 of 2022
filed by Adv. D. B Ajayan. In the affidavit submitted by
the counsel along with the petition, it was affirmed that he
had served a copy of the advance petition to the counsel for
WP© 21719/22
the petitioners. The reason stated in the advance petition
was that in Writ Petition No.9511 of 2022, this court has
directed the Board to dispose of the matter within 2 months
from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
4. The main contention raised in the Writ Petition is
that no copy of the advance petition was served on the
counsel for the respondents and the said case was not
posted to 7.6.2022 nor included in the cause list on that
day. The impugned order Ext.P1 states that both the sides
were heard by the Board in detail and both sides agreed that
there was a dispute in the general body and the respondents
submitted that the Committee elected on 28.2.2021 was an
Ad hoc committee and both sides have no objection in
conducting the election to the Jama-ath in a proper method.
Taking into consideration the above submission on behalf
of the counsel on both sides, Adv. P A Salam was
appointed as the Returning Officer to conduct the election.
5. Exhibit P1 being a final order, should have been
WP© 21719/22
passed by the Board after giving notice and after affording
an opportunity of hearing to the counsel on both sides. But
the specific case of the petitioners is that the notice on the
advance petition was not served on the counsel, nor they
were heard, and the order was passed by the Board is illegal
and improper. When a serious allegation was raised against
the Wakf Board before this Court, we directed the learned
Standing counsel for the Wakf board to produce the files
regarding the case. The learned standing counsel, Shri.
Jamshed Hafiz produced the files today. We have perused
the same. The files show that the affidavit and the petition
are filed as IA No.104 of 2022 filed by Adv. D B Ajayan
for advancing The case. But there is no endorsement to the
effect that a copy has been served on the Counsel for the
respondents. Only an averment that the intimation
regarding the filing of the advance petition was made
known to the Counsel for the respondents. It is seen that no
order is passed on the advance petition filed as IA.No.104
of 2022. The files does not disclose that the counsel for the
petitioners was heard on that day, even though the
WP© 21719/22
impugned order states that they were heard. The advance
petition was filed on 7/6/2022 and the order is passed on
the very same day. On perusing the files, we are convinced
that an opportunity for hearing was not afforded to the
petitioners. Hence, we are constrained to set aside the
order dated 7.6.2022, produced as Ext.P1 in this petition.
In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and Ext.P1
order dated 7.6.2022 is set aside and the affidavit filed by
the counsel with Advance Petition I.A.No.104 of 2022 is
nullified and the matter is remitted to the Board. The
parties are free to approach the Board for further orders.
sd
S.V.BHATTI,
JUDGE
sd
BASANT BALAJI,
JUDGE
dl/
WP© 21719/22
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21719/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure1 AFFIDAVIT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.06.2022
OF THE WAQF BOARD, ERRNAKULAM IN
O.P.NO.100/2021
