Kerala High Court
Ubaidulla Pattakal vs The District Collector, Ut Of ... on 11 March, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:20256
WP(C) NO. 4301 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 4301 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
UBAIDULLA PATTAKAL
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O. KOMALAM NALLA KOYA, ANDROTH ISLAND,
LAKSHADWEEP, PIN - 682551
BY ADVS.
M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
BABU KARUKAPADATH
P.K.ABDUL RAHIMAN
ARYA RAGHUNATH
KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU
P.LAKSHMI
AYSHA E.M.
ABUASIL A.K.
MANU KRISHNA S.K.
HANIYA NAFIZA V.S.
HASHIM K.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP
UT OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHI ISLAND, PIN - 682555
2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
UT OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHI ISLAND, PIN - 682555
3 EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE
ANDROTH ISLAND, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP, PIN - 682551
4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ANDROTH POLICE STATION, ANDROTH ISLAND, UT OF
LAKSHADWEEP, PIN - 682551
2025:KER:20256
WP(C) NO. 4301 OF 2025
2
5 A.I. KUNHISEETHIKOYA
AGED 80 YEARS
S/O. MUTHUKOYA ALIYATHAMMADA AISAYYAPURA, ANDROTH,
LAKSHADWEEP, PIN - 682551
6 A.B POOKOYA
AGED 74 YEARS
S/O. MUTHUKOYA, ALIYATHAMMADA BEETHATHABIYYAPURA,
ANDROTH, LAKSHADWEEP, PIN - 682551
7 A.B. MUHAMMED NAJEEB
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. MUTHUKOYA, ALIYATHAMMADA BEETHATHABIYYAPURA,
ANDROTH, LAKSHADWEEP., PIN - 682551
8 A.B. MUHAMMED BASHEER
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. POOKOYA AYIKKAKAM BALIYAPURA, ALIYATHAMMADA
BEETHATHEBIYYAPURA, ANDROTH, LAKSHADWEEP, PIN -
682551
9 ADDL.R9. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
LAKSHADWEEP STATE WAKF BOARD, KACHERI JUNCTION,
KAVARATHI ISLAND, PIN - 682555 (ADDL.R9 IS IMPLEADED
AS PER ORDER DATED 20-02-2025 IN IA 1/2025 IN WPC
4301/2025)
BY ADVS.
R.V. Sreejith
K.SUJAI SATHIAN
PREETHI. P.V.(K/1819/1999)
MARY LIYA SABU(K/001533/2018)
AISWARYA S. ASHOKAN(K/678/2021)
NEERAJ KRISHNA KUMAR(K/1635/2024)
ARAVIND K.(K/1928/2024)
T.SETHUMADHAVAN (SR.)(S-310)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
5.3.2025, THE COURT ON 11.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:20256
WP(C) NO. 4301 OF 2025
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
===========================
W.P (C) No.4301 of 2025
===========================
Dated this the 11th March, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the Muthawalli of Androth Juma Mosque,
Lakshadweep. The management and administration of the Mosque
are vested with the eldest member of the Pattakkal Tharavadu, and
the members of the Aliyathammada family are restrained from
interfering in the rights of the former as per Exts.P1 and P2
judgments passed by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
respectively. While so, the members of the Aliyathammada family
had filed a suit before the Wakf Tribunal, Lakshadweep, against
some of their family members, claiming the right to hold the post of
Katheeb in the Mosque. The dispute was decided by this Court as
per Ext.P3 judgment, wherein it is directed that if there is no suitable
person in the Aliyathammada family, the Mutawalli can appoint the
Katheeb from outside the family. The selection process is to be
conducted by the Mutawalli in consultation with the Chief Executive
2025:KER:20256
WP(C) NO. 4301 OF 2025
Officer of the Lakshadweep Wakf Board ― the 9 th respondent, and
the senior members of the Aliyathammada family. After the passing
of Ext.P3 judgment, certain persons claiming to be senior members
of the Aliyathammada family had approached the petitioner to
appoint them as Katheeb. Meanwhile, the Executive Magistrate of
the Androth Island ― the 3rd respondent ― intervened in the matter
and compelled the petitioner to appoint persons of his choice.
However, the petitioner did not adhere to the demand. Out of this
animosity, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P4 order prohibiting Juma
prayers in the Mosque. The petitioner challenged the order before
this Court. Then, the 3rd respondent withdrew Ext.P4 order.
Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P6 order permitting some
of the party respondents to perform the functions of Katheeb in the
Mosque. The 3rd respondent also passed Ext.P7 order, granting
police protection to implement Ext.P6 order. The petitioner has
challenged Exts.P6 and P7 orders before this Court, and Ext.P8
order has been passed, staying the impugned orders. The
petitioner had taken steps to appoint the Katheeb from the
2025:KER:20256
WP(C) NO. 4301 OF 2025
Aliyathammada family after publishing notices and intimating the
matter to the 9th respondent and the senior members of the
Aliyathammada family. But there was no response from anyone. As
there is no suitable person in the Aliyathammada family to be
appointed as Katheeb in the Mosque, the petitioner appointed a
person named Mohammed Magroof Lateefi as the Katheeb as per
Ext.P31 appointment order. Immediately, the members of the
Aliyathammada family issued Ext.P32 letter demanding the
withdrawal of the appointment letter. The Katheeb has joined the
Mosque on 24.1.2025. Apprehending a law-and-order problem, the
petitioner submitted Exts.P35 to 37 representations to the
respondents 1 to 4 for police protection to enable the Katheeb to
carry out his duties. However, no action has been taken. The
inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 4 is arbitrary. Hence,
the writ petition.
2. The respondents 5 to 8 have filed a counter affidavit
denying the allegations in the writ petition. They have, inter alia,
contended that the petitioner has wrongly interpreted the directions
2025:KER:20256
WP(C) NO. 4301 OF 2025
in Ext.P3 judgment. By Ext.P3 judgment, this Court has explicitly
held that the right to select the Katheeb is vested with the
Aliyathammada family. Only when there are no suitable persons in
the above family can an outsider be appointed as Katheeb, in
consultation with the 9th respondent and the senior members of the
Aliyathammada family. The petitioner has not followed the procedure
in appointing the present Katheeb. The petitioner has no unfettered
right to select the Katheeb. The petitioner is seeking police
protection in favour of a Katheeb, who is not a member of the
Aliyathammada family. The respondents 5 to 8 had furnished a list of
13 persons who were selected by the senior members of the
Aliyathammada family to be appointed to the post of Katheeb to the
petitioner and the 9th respondent. The contention of the petitioner
that those 13 persons are unsuitable and some are fishermen is
untenable. The persons, referred to as fishermen, own fishing boats
and are engaged in the sale of fish. The selected persons have
recited the Kuthuba on earlier occasions. The petitioner is trying
to make the selection process to the post of Katheeb, similar to the
2025:KER:20256
WP(C) NO. 4301 OF 2025
selection process adopted by the Public Service Commission. The
unilateral decision of the petitioner to select an outsider without
consulting and having the concurrence of the members of the
Aliyathammada family and the 9th respondent is ex-facie illegal. The
petitioner is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Court and enforce a disputed right. Hence, the writ petition may be
dismissed.
3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit denying the
allegations in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 5 to 8.
4. Heard: Sri. Babu Karukapadath, the learned counsel for
the petitioner; Sri. R.V. Sreejith, the learned counsel for respondents
1 to 4 and 9; and Sri. Sethu Madhavan, the learned Senior Counsel
for respondents 5 to 8.
5. The crux of the dispute is whether an order of police
protection is to be granted to the Katheeb appointed by the
petitioner to conduct the prayers in the mosque.
6. It is undisputed, as matters stand now, all parties are
governed by Ext.P3 judgment passed by this Court. The directions
2025:KER:20256
WP(C) NO. 4301 OF 2025
in the judgment read as follows:
"For the reason stated above, we are of the view that the findings
of the Tribunal are not sustainable in the eyes of law and suffer from illegality
and perversity, accordingly are set aside. Declaration is granted that the
additionally impleaded respondents, i.e., Mutawalli is to appoint the Katheeb
from the members of Aliyathammada family by taking into consideration the
CEO of Wakf Board, Lakshadweep, after following the due procedure by
taking the process for appointment of Katheeb from the said family and when
there is no suitable person, only then outsider is ordered to be permitted. The
selection process of Katheeb has to be undertaken by the Mutawalli in
consultation with the CEO and senior members of Aliyathammada family."
7. The central plank of the petitioner's contention is that,
although he made valid attempts to conduct the selection process in
consultation with the members of the Aliyathammada family and the
9th respondent, there were no suitable candidates in the
Aliyathammada family to be appointed as Katheeb. Conversely, the
respondents 5 to 8 contend that, even though they had furnished a
list of 13 persons to be selected as Katheeb, the petitioner
unilaterally appointed a Katheeb, violating the directions in Ext.P3
judgment.
8. The learned Standing Counsel for the 9 th respondent
submitted that, though the petitioner had informed the 9 th respondent
regarding the initial publication of notice and the selection process,
after that, the 9th respondent was not informed or consulted about
2025:KER:20256
WP(C) NO. 4301 OF 2025
the selection and appointment of the present Katheeb.
9. In Ext.P3 judgment, this Court has, in unambiguous
terms, directed the Mutawalli to appoint the Katheeb from the family
members of the Aliyathammada family in consultation with the 9 th
respondent. Only when there are no suitable persons in the said
family can an outsider be appointed. However, even then the
selection process of Katheeb is to be undertaken by the Mutawalli in
consultation with the 9th respondent and the members of the
Aliyathammada family.
10. Prima facie, there are no materials placed on record to
substantiate that the petitioner had consulted the 9 th respondent and
the members of the Aliyathammada family before the selection and
appointment of the Katheeb as per Ext.P31 order, which is a
disputed question of fact, which has to be adjudicated and decided
in an independent proceeding and not in this writ petition.
11 In P.R. Murlidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha
Padar [(2006) 4 SCC 501], the Hon'ble Supreme Court while
considering the question whether an order of police protection can
2025:KER:20256
WP(C) NO. 4301 OF 2025
be granted to protect a person's right to property or to an office, has
held as follows:
"12. It is one thing to say that in a given case a person may be
held to be entitled to police protection, having regard to the threat
perception, but it is another thing to say that he is entitled thereto for
holding an office and discharging certain functions when his right to do so
is open to question. A person could not approach the High Court for the
purpose of determining such disputed questions of fact which were
beyond the scope and purport of the jurisdiction of the High Court while
exercising writ jurisdiction as it also involved determination of disputed
questions of fact.
*** *** *** ***
17. A writ petition under the guise of seeking a writ of mandamus
directing the police authorities to give protection to a writ petitioner, cannot
be made a forum for adjudicating on civil rights. It is one thing to approach
the High Court, for issuance of such a writ on a plea that a particular party
has not obeyed a decree or an order of injunction passed in favour of the
writ petitioner, was deliberately flouting that decree or order and in spite of
the petitioner applying for it, or that the police authorities are not giving
him the needed protection in terms of the decree or order passed by a
court with jurisdiction. But, it is quite another thing to seek a writ of
mandamus directing protection in respect of property, status or right
which remains to be adjudicated upon and when such an
adjudication can only be got done in a properly instituted civil suit. It
would be an abuse of process for a writ petitioner to approach the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of
mandamus directing the police authorities to protect his claimed
possession of a property without first establishing his possession in
an appropriate civil court. The temptation to grant relief in cases of
this nature should be resisted by the High Court. The wide
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would remain
effective and meaningful only when it is exercised prudently and in
appropriate situations.
18. **** *** ****
A writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to give
protection to the person of a writ petitioner can be issued, when the court
is satisfied that there is a threat to his person and the authorities have
failed to perform their duties and it is different from granting relief for the
first time to a person either to allegedly protect his right to property or his
right to an office, especially when the pleadings themselves disclose that
2025:KER:20256
WP(C) NO. 4301 OF 2025
disputed questions are involved. My learned Brother has rightly pointed
out that the High Court was in error in proceeding to adjudicate on the
rights and obligations arising out of the trust deed merely based on the
affidavits and the deed itself. I fully agree with my learned Brother that the
High Court should not have undertaken such an exercise on the basis that
the right of the writ petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution is sought
to be affected by the actions of the contesting respondents and their
supporters and that can be prevented by the issue of the writ of
mandamus prayed for".
(emphasis given)
12. Recently, in Padmanabhan N v. State of Kerala (2024
KHC Online 7177), the Division Bench of this Court has held as
follows:
"6. Police protection cannot be asked for issues that fall within
the jurisdiction of civil courts, particularly when it involves resolving
private disputes between parties. It is well established in law that civil
rights must be adjudicated by competent civil courts. The enforcement
of civil court orders should be carried out in accordance with the
procedures outlined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or any
relevant statute that establishes the appropriate forums for such
matters.
*** *** *** ***
***
8. Seeking and employing a police force cannot be a means to
sidestep the need for dispute resolution in competent courts. Invariably,
such directions are sought invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of
India."
13. Considering the facts and materials on record,
particularly the disputed question regarding the validity of the
appointment of Katheeb, I am not inclined to exercise the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
2025:KER:20256
WP(C) NO. 4301 OF 2025
Constitution of India, and direct the respondents 1 to 4 to afford
adequate police protection to the petitioner and the Katheeb to
conduct the Juma prayers in the Mosque. Consequently, the writ
petition is dismissed, which is without prejudice to the right of the
petitioner to work out his remedies, in accordance with law.
Nonetheless, the 4th respondent is ordered to ensure that law and
order is maintained during the prayers at the Mosque, without
interfering in any civil dispute between the petitioner and the party
respondents.
SD/-C.S.DIAS,
JUDGE
ma/06.03.2025
2025:KER:20256
WP(C) NO. 4301 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4301/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
18/12/2007 IN CRP NO.460/2006 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
01/08/2019 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.9586/2010 OF
THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
07/10/2024 IN CRP NO.1204/2005 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER DATED
15/11/2024 PURPORTED TO BE ISSUED UNDER
SECTION 163 OF BNSS, 2023 PROHIBITING JUMA
PRAYERS IN ANDROTH JUMA MOSQUE FROM
15/11/2024
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/12/2024
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITHDRAWING
EXHIBIT P4 ORDER
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/12/2024
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT PERMITTING
SOME OF THE RESPONDENTS TO PERFORM THE
FUNCTIONS OF KATHEEB OF THE JUMA MASJID
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/12/2024
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ORDERING
POLICE PROTECTION TO THE PERSONS MENTIONED
IN EXHIBIT P6
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/12/2024
IN CRL.M.C. NO. 10791/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT STAYING THE OPERATION OF EXHIBITS P6
AND P7 ORDERS
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/12/2024
IN WP(C) NO.45788/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT ORDERING POLICE PROTECTION
2025:KER:20256
WP(C) NO. 4301 OF 2025
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 25/11/2024
SENT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER TO THE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LAKSHADWEEP STATE
WAKF BOARD ALONG WITH RELEVANT PARTS OF
THE DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING THE SAME
Exhibit P10(a) A TRUE COPY OF ANNEXURE: A, WHICH IS
PROPOSED FORMAT OF APPLICATION FORMING THE
PART OF EXHIBIT P10
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26/11/2024
ISSUED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
LAKSHADWEEP STATE WAKF BOARD TO THE SO
CALLED SENIOR MEMBERS OF ALIYATHAMMADA
FAMILY CIRCULATING THE FILE AND THE
PROPOSAL MADE BY THE PETITIONER INVITING
THEIR SUGGESTIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS, IF ANY
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/12/2024
SENT BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
LAKSHADWEEP STATE WAKF BOARD TO THE
PETITIONER INSTRUCTING HIM TO TAKE FURTHER
SUITABLE ACTION IN PURSUANCE TO EXHIBIT P3
JUDGEMENT
Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 20/12/2024
ALONG WITH THE NOTIFICATION, INVITING
APPLICATION TO BE PUBLISHED, SENT TO THE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LAKSHADWEEP STATE
WAKF BOARD
Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 20/12/2024
ALONG WITH THE FORMAT OF APPLICATION, TO
BE PUBLISHED, SENT TO THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, LAKSHADWEEP STATE WAKF BOARD
Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/12/2024
ISSUED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
LAKSHADWEEP STATE WAKF BOARD TO THE SENIOR
MEMBERS OF ALIYATHAMMADA FAMILY, THROUGH
THE 3RD RESPONDENT, WHEREBY THE
NOTIFICATION INVITING APPLICATIONS AND THE
APPLICATION FORMAT WERE CIRCULATED AMONG
2025:KER:20256
WP(C) NO. 4301 OF 2025
THE SENIOR MEMBERS OF ALIYATHAMMADA FAMILY
Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE DATED
20/12/2024 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE A FORMAT OF
APPLICATION PUBLISHED IN THE NOTICE BOARD
OF ANDROTH JUMA MOSQUE, THE OFFICE OF THE
DEPUTY COLLECTOR, ANDROTH ISLAND, ANDROTH
POLICE STATION, THE OFFICE OF THE WAKF
BOARD, LAKSHADWEEP INVITING APPLICATION
FROM THE MEMBERS OF ALIYATHAMMADA FAMILY
FOR APPOINTMENT AS KATHEEB IN ANDROTH JUMA
MOSQUE
Exhibit P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE
PUBLICATION OF NOTICE INVITING
APPLICATIONS FROM MEMBERS OF ALIYATHAMMADA
FAMILY PUBLISHED IN SIRAJ DAILY DATED
22/12/2024
Exhibit P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 30/12/2024
SENT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER TO THE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LAKSHADWEEP STATE
WAKF BOARD ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT PART OF
THE FILE/ATTACHMENT, INTIMATING THAT,
THOUGH THE TIME FIXED FOR RECEIVING THE
APPLICATIONS FROM THE MEMBERS OF
ALIYATHAMMADA FAMILY WAS OVER BY
29/12/2024, NO APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED
FROM THEM
Exhibit P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31/12/2024
ISSUED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
LAKSHADWEEP STATE WAKF BOARD TO THE
PETITIONER INSTRUCTING HIM TO EXTEND THE
PERIOD FOR RECEIVING THE APPLICATIONS BY A
FURTHER PERIOD OF 10 DAYS MORE AND TO GIVE
PUBLICITY TO THE SAME AS WELL
Exhibit P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 02/01/2025
SEND BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
LAKSHADWEEP STATE WAKF BOARD TO THE
PETITIONER RETURNING THE NOTE FILES,
PERTAINING TO THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR
APPOINTING THE KATHEEB, AND FURTHER
INSTRUCTING THE PETITIONER TO SEND ONLY
2025:KER:20256
WP(C) NO. 4301 OF 2025
THE LETTERS BY WAY OF CORRESPONDENCE
Exhibit P21 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 03/01/2025
SENT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER TO THE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LAKSHADWEEP STATE
WAKF BOARD, ALONG WITH LETTER DATED
03/01/2025 EXPLAINING THE REASON FOR
REDUCING THE PERIOD TOGETHER WITH THE
REMINDER NOTIFICATION AND THE FORMAT OF
APPLICATION ACCOMPANYING THE SAME
Exhibit P22 A TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE DATED
03/01/2025 INVITING APPLICATIONS FROM THE
MEMBERS OF ALIYATHAMMADA FAMILY ALONG WITH
THE FORMAT OF APPLICATION PUBLISHED IN THE
NOTICE BOARD OF ANDROTH JUMA MOSQUE, THE
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, ANDROTH
ISLAND, ANDROTH POLICE STATION, THE OFFICE
OF THE WAKF BOARD, LAKSHADWEEP
Exhibit P23 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE
PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLISHED IN SIRAJ DAILY
DATED 05/01/2025
Exhibit P24 A TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED BY MR. SAYYID
Exhibit P25 . A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED
10/01/2025, ALONG WITH THE LETTER DATED
10/01/2025 ACCOMPANYING THE SAME, SENT ON
BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER TO THE CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LAKSHADWEEP STATE WAKF
BOARD, INTIMATING THE PROPOSED PROCESS OF
SELECTION FROM THE OUTSIDERS
Exhibit P26 A TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE DATED
13/01/2025 INVITING APPLICATIONS FROM
PUBLIC ALONG WITH THE FORMAT OF
APPLICATION PUBLISHED IN THE NOTICE BOARD
OF ANDROTH JUMA MOSQUE, THE OFFICE OF THE
DEPUTY COLLECTOR, ANDROTH ISLAND, ANDROTH
POLICE STATION AND IN THE OFFICE OF THE
WAKF BOARD, LAKSHADWEEP
2025:KER:20256
WP(C) NO. 4301 OF 2025
Exhibit P27 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 13/01/2025
ALONG WITH THE PUBLIC NOTICE DATED
13/01/2025, INVITING APPLICATIONS FROM
PUBLIC ALONG WITH THE FORMAT OF
APPLICATION ACCOMPANYING THE SAME, SENT ON
BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER TO THE CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LAKSHADWEEP STATE WAKF
BOARD
Exhibit P28 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 20/01/2025
ALONG WITH THE LETTER DATED 20/01/2025
ACCOMPANYING THE SAME SENT ON BEHALF OF
THE PETITIONER TO THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, LAKSHADWEEP STATE WAKF BOARD
INDICATING THE URGENCY IN COMPLETING THE
SELECTION PROCESS IN TERMS OF THE
NOTIFICATION DATED 13/01/2025
Exhibit P29 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 20/01/2025
ALONG WITH THE LETTER DATED 20/01/2025 OF
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LAKSHADWEEP
STATE WAKF BOARD
Exhibit P30 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21/01/2025
SENT BY THE PETITIONER BY EMAIL TO THE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LAKSHADWEEP STATE
WAKF BOARD
Exhibit P31 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT
DATED 22/01/2025 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER
IN TERMS OF EXHIBIT P3 ORDER
Exhibit P32 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/01/2025
ISSUED BY THE SO CALLED SENIOR MEMBERS OF
ALIYATHAMMADA FAMILY TO THE PNETITIONER
Exhibit P33 A TRUE COPY OF THE JOINING LETTER DATED
24/01/2025 SUBMITTED BY MR. MOHAMMED
MAGROOF LATEEFI
Exhibit P34 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELIGIOUS QUALIFICATION
CERTIFICATES OF MR. MOHAMMED MAGROOF
LATEEFI
2025:KER:20256
WP(C) NO. 4301 OF 2025
Exhibit P35 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
23/01/2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P36 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
23/01/2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P37 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
23/01/2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P28 A true copy of the email dated 20/01/2025
along with the letter dated 20/01/2025
accompanying the same sent on behalf of
the petitioner to the Chief Executive
Officer, Lakshadweep State Wakf Board
indicating the urgency in completing the
selection process in terms of the
notification dated 13/01/2025
EXHIBIT P29 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 20/01/2025
ALONG WITH THE LETTER DATED 20/01/2025 OF
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LAKSHADWEEP
STATE WAKF BOARD.
EXHIBIT P30 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21/01.2025 SENT BY
THE PETITIONER BY E-MAIL TO THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
LAKSHADWEEP STATE WAKF BOARD3
EXHIBIT P31: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED
22/01/2025 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER IN INTERMS OF EXT.P3 ORDER
EXHIBIT P32: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.01.2025 ISSUED
BY THE SO-CALLED SENIOR MEMBERS OF ALIYATHAMMADA FAMILY TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P33 TRUE COPY OF THE JOINING LETTER DATED 24/01/2025
SUBMITTED BY MR.MOHAMMED MAGROOF LATEEFI
EXHIBIT P34: TRUE COPY OF THE RELIGIOUS QUALIFICATION
CERTIFICATES OF MR.MOHAMMED MAGROOF LATEEFI
EXHIBIT P35 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
2025:KER:20256
WP(C) NO. 4301 OF 2025
23/01/2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P 36: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23/01/25
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P37 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
23/01/2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS
Exhibit R5(a) A true copy of the communication dated 20-
01-2025
Exhibit R5(b) A true copy of the communication dated 24-
01-2025
