[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
K.T.Muhammed Ali vs Marakkarutty. T.E on 23 January, 2026
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
W.A.Nos.2816 of 2025 & 34 of 2026 1 2026:KER:5245
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 3RD MAGHA, 1947
WA NO. 2816 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2025 IN WP(C) NO.13024 OF 2025
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/4TH RESPONDENT IN WP(C):
K.T.MUHAMMED ALI
SON OF MUHAMMED,
KATTILTHODI VEEDU, VEENALUKKAL, P.O.PARAPPUR,
TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 01.04.2025 IN IA
1/2025, PIN - 676503
BY ADV SHRI.NIRMAL.S
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 MARAKKARUTTY. T.E
AGED 74 YEARS
SON OF MOIDEENKUTTY, SECRETARY,
THARBIYATHUL ISLAM SANGHAM,
REG NO.16/69, VEENALUKKAL, PARAPPUR, KOTTAKKAL,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676503
2 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
THIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676306
3 KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD
OFFICE OF THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, VIP ROAD,
KALOOR, ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PIN -
682017
4 ABDURAHEEM
SON OF KUNHU MUHAMMED HAJI,
ALANGADAN VEEDU,
W.A.Nos.2816 of 2025 & 34 of 2026 2 2026:KER:5245
PARAPPUR VILLAGE, P.O. PARAPPUR,
TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 01.04.2025 IN IA
1/2025, PIN - 673503
SR.GP SMT.NISHA BOSE
SC, WAQF BOARD, SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ
R1, SRI. AUGUSTINE JOSEPH
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.01.2026,
ALONG WITH WA.34/2026, THE COURT ON 23.01.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.2816 of 2025 & 34 of 2026 3 2026:KER:5245
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 3RD MAGHA, 1947
WA NO. 34 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2025 IN WP(C) NO.13024 OF 2025
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/4TH RESPONDENT IN WPC:
K.T.MUHAMMED ALI
SON OF MUHAMMED, KATTILTHODI VEEDU,
VEENALUKKAL, P.O.PARAPPUR, TIRURANGADI TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 01.04.2025 IN IA
1/2025, PIN - 676503
BY ADVS.
SHRI.NIRMAL.S
SMT.VEENA HARI
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WPC:
1 MARAKKARUTTY. T.E
AGED 74 YEARS
SON OF MOIDEENKUTTY, SECRETARY,
THARBIYATHUL ISLAM SANGHAM,
REG NO.16/69, VEENALUKKAL, PARAPPUR,
KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676503
2 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
THIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676306
3 KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD
OFFICE OF THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD,
VIP ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PIN -
682017
W.A.Nos.2816 of 2025 & 34 of 2026 4 2026:KER:5245
4 ABDURAHEEM
SON OF KUNHU MUHAMMED HAJI, ALANGADAN VEEDU,
PARAPPUR VILLAGE, P.O. PARAPPUR, TIRURANGADI TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 01.04.2025 IN IA
1/2025, PIN - 676503
SR. GP, SMT.NISHA BOSE
SC, WAQF BOARD, SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ
COUNSEL FOR R1, SRI AUGUSTIN JOSEPH
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.01.2026,
ALONG WITH WA.2816/2025, THE COURT ON 23.01.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.2816 of 2025 & 34 of 2026 5 2026:KER:5245
JUDGMENT
[WA Nos.2816/2025 & 34/2026]
Muralee Krishna S., J.
These intra-court appeals are filed under Section 5(i) of the
Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by the 4th respondent in
W.P.(C)No.13024 of 2025, challenging the respective interim
orders dated 18.11.2025 and 01.04.2025 passed in that writ
petition.
2. The 1st respondent-writ petitioner filed
W.P.(C)No.13024 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or
direction to the 1st respondent to approve the appointment
of Sri.T.Moideenkutty as Manager of the schools as provided
in Rule 4(1) and (2A) of Chapter III of the Kerala Education
Rules.
(ii) Declare that the Tharbiyathul Islam Sangham, Parappur
and the schools AUP school, IU High School and IU HSS are
not wakf property and hence the 2nd respondent has no
jurisdiction to interfere in the election and administration of
the petitioner society and the schools.
(iii) Issue a writ of prohibition or any other writ, order or
direction to the 2nd respondent to interfere in the
administration of the petitioner Society.
(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or
W.A.Nos.2816 of 2025 & 34 of 2026 6 2026:KER:5245
direction to the 1st respondent to consider the approval of
Sri.T.Moideenkutty as Manager of the schools untrammeled
by Ext.P5 of the Wakf Board."
3. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the 1st
respondent-writ petitioner is the Secretary of a registered Society
conducting aided schools. The President of the Society will be the
Manager of the schools. From 2014 onwards, the President of the
Society, namely one T.Moideenkutty, who is not a party to the writ
petition, is the Manager of the school. As per the byelaw, the
tenure of the Managing Committee is only two years. Hence, the
District Educational Officer extended the approval of the President
as Manager till 30.01.2025. Thereafter, the District Educational
Officer did not approve the Manager, stating Ext.P5 order dated
30.05.2024 passed by the Kerala State Wakf Board in O.P.No.115
of 2024 filed by one Abduraheem and the appellant herein
restraining the Society from conducting the election. According to
the 1st respondent-writ petitioner, the Society and the schools are
not Wakf properties. By Ext.P8 letter dated 19.02.2025, issued
under the provisions of the Right to Information Act it was
informed by the Kerala State Wakf Board that the Society and the
school have not registered with the Kerala State Wakf Board.
Since the Society and the schools are not registered under the
W.A.Nos.2816 of 2025 & 34 of 2026 7 2026:KER:5245
Waqf Act, the Kerala State Wakf Board or the Wakf Tribunal have
no power to interfere in the administration of the Society and the
schools. Hence, Ext.P5 order dated 30.05.2024 of the 3rd
respondent, the Kerala State Wakf Board, restricting the election
to the societies is illegal and arbitrary. Moreover, the approval of
the Manager of the schools is also kept pending, and accordingly,
the day-to-day works and administration of the schools are also
in trouble. As per Rule 4(1) and 4(2A) of Chapter III of the Kerala
Education Rules, 1959, the District Educational Officer has a duty
and obligation to approve the Manager. However, the District
Educational Officer did not approve the approval of the Manager.
With these pleadings, the 1st respondent-petitioner filed the writ
petition.
4. In the writ petition, the appellant-4th respondent filed
a counter affidavit dated 10.07.2025 opposing the relief sought
and producing therewith Exts.R4(a) to R4(c) documents.
Paragraphs 4 to 12 of that counter affidavit read thus:
"4. It is respectfully submitted that the society named
"Tharbiyathul Islam Sangham" is a registered society with
Register No.2293/RA under the Kerala State Wakf Board. The
averments in Paragraphs 1 to 3 are not fully correct. The
contention in Paragraph 3 that the Society has no connection
W.A.Nos.2816 of 2025 & 34 of 2026 8 2026:KER:5245
with the Madrasa and School and the Properties of the Society
are not registered with Wakf Board so far are absolutely
incorrect and hence denied. The averments in Paragraph 5
that the society or the aided schools under the society are not
coming under the Wakf Board are also totally false and hence
denied.
5. It is further submitted that the attempt of the Petitioner is
to somehow exclude itself from the jurisdiction of the Waqf
Board by taking a contention that the Properties are not Waqf
Properties and therefore the petitioner is trying to wriggle out
from the Jurisdiction of Waqf Board. The Averment in
Paragraph 5 that the society is not registered to Waqf Board
is totally incorrect. The properties in which the Madrasa and
School are situated belong to the Waqf.
6. The Averments in Paragraph 7 of the Writ Petition that
WOS No.62 of 2022 filed by Mr.Abdul Majeed M.P was
dismissed may not have any bearing on the facts of the
present case. The WOS 62 of 2022 was withdrawn under the
compulsion and undue influence of the petitioner. The 2nd and
3rd respondents are not in any way connected with the suit
and the withdrawal of WOS 62 of 2022 will not confer any
right to petitioner or entitle him for the declaration of
"Tharbiyathul Islam Sangham" Parappur is not a Waqf
Property.
7. The contention in the Writ Petition that as per Clause viii
of Ext.P1 byelaw the Managing committee of the society for a
period of 2 years and the Managing Committee has right to
continue till a new committee assumes starts without
Bonafide. The averment that the 2nd and 3rd respondent filed
OP 115 of 2024 before Kerala State Waqf Board and obtained
W.A.Nos.2816 of 2025 & 34 of 2026 9 2026:KER:5245
an interim order restraining the Petitioner society from
conducting election is correct and therefore admitted. The
remedy of the petitioner if he is aggrieved by Ext.P5 is not to
seek for a declaration that the "Tharbiyathul Islam Sangham"
is not a Waqf Property. The attempt of Petitioner is to
indirectly challenge Ext.P5 Order without resorting to the
alternative remedy provided under the statute. By seeking a
larger prayer of declaration before this Hon'ble Court the
attempt of the petitioner is to bypass the statutory provisions
under the Waqf Act.
8. The contention in Paragraph 9 that Sri. T. Moidheenkutty
is permitted to continue as Manager by virtue of Ext.P6 and
Ext.P7 is not fully correct. This respondent submits that the
Ext.P6 and Ext.P7 are obtained behind the back of this
respondent and without disclosing the true facts. The
contention that Waqf Tribunal/Waqf Board has no power to
interfere in administration of the society is absolutely
incorrect and hence denied.
9. In fact, the election was conducted as per the order in I A
No. 516 of 2016 in O.S 62 of 2016 of Waqf Tribunal. True
copy of the notification published by the Zonal waqf officer of
the Kerala State Waqf Board dated 28.10.2016 is produced
herewith and marked as Ext.R3(a). The election was
conducted on 10.12.2016 and as per the election result the
candidates in panel 2 was elected and the panel consisting of
petitioner lost the election. Thereafter on 14.12.2016 the
meeting of the "Tharbiyathul Islam Sangham was convened
with newly elected members who were been elected as the
office bearing members of the Sangham. As per the decision
taken on 14.12.2016, Sri Moideenkutty was elected as
W.A.Nos.2816 of 2025 & 34 of 2026 10 2026:KER:5245
president and he is continuing to be the president after the
election which has happened on 10.12.2016. True copy of the
Report dated 03.01.2017 is produced herewith and marked
as Ext.R3(b).
10. The respondent respectfully submits that no election has
been conducted thereafter and the committee under the
management of Sri.Moideenkutty is continuing as the office
bearers of the society. The term of the committee has long
expired and the petitioner is in collusion with the Sri
Moideenkutty and supporting him. It is very strange that the
petitioner is trying to support the cause of the Sri.
Moideenkutty and helping him to continue as manager. Even
after the term of Sri. Moideen kutty expired on 30.05.2024
the said sri. Moideenkutty has made illegal appointments by
appointments in the school as its manager having come to
the management through the election conducted by the Waqf
board. Petitioner ought not to have contended and he is
estopped from maintaining that the properties are not Waqf
property.
11. It is also further submitted was the petitioner herein was
a member of panel 1 with Serial no.10 in Ext.R3(a) having
voters list and contested the election and lost in the election.
The election was conducted as per the direction of Waqf
tribunal and now the petitioner turns around and say the
society is not coming under the Waqf Tribunal. No election is
properly conducted thereafter and the petitioner is not the
legally elected Secretary of the Sangham.
12. In fact another writ petition was filed as WPC.No.14346
of 2025 seeking similar reliefs by the petitioner and by the
judgment dated 25.05.2025 the writ petition was dismissed.
W.A.Nos.2816 of 2025 & 34 of 2026 11 2026:KER:5245
True copy of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.14346 of 2025 dated
25.06.2025 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R3
(c). The appeal filed against the judgment as W.A.1628/2025
was also dismissed by the Division Bench."
5. To the counter affidavit filed by the appellant-4th
respondent, the 1st respondent-writ petitioner filed a reply
affidavit dated 06.08.2025, producing therewith Exts.P9 to P12
documents. Along with I.A.No.3 of 2025, the appellant-4th
respondent produced Exts.R4(d) to R4(i) documents.
6. On 01.04.2025, when the writ petition came up for
consideration, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order
impugned in W.A.No.34 of 2026, which read thus:
"Admit.
2. Government Pleader takes notice for the 1st respondent.
Standing Counsel takes notice for the 2nd respondent. Issue
urgent notice by speed post to the additional respondents 3
and 4.
3. Considering the fact that the President of the Society,
Tharbiyathul Islam Sangham, has been functioning as the
Manager of the School for long years, it would be only
appropriate that till a decision is taken by the Wakf Board,
the appointment of Sri.T.Moideenkutty as Manager is
continued provisionally.
4. The 1st respondent is therefore directed to extend the
tenure of the Manager of the School for a further period of
three months. Pendency of the writ petition or the interim
W.A.Nos.2816 of 2025 & 34 of 2026 12 2026:KER:5245
order passed in this writ petition shall not in any way affect
the proceedings pending before the Wakf Board and the Wakf
Board will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
Post on 10.06.2025."
7. Thereafter, the appellant-4th respondent filed I.A.No.2
of 2025 before the learned Single Judge to vacate the interim
order dated 01.04.2025, which was later extended till 16.09.2025.
By the order dated 18.11.2025, the learned Single Judge
dismissed the aforesaid interlocutory application. The said order
dated 18.11.2025 impugned in W.A.No.2816 of 2025 reads thus:
"When the writ petition came up for hearing on 01.04.2025,
this Court ordered that since the President of the Society,
Tharbiyathul Islam Sangham, has been functioning as the
Manager of the School for long years, it would be only
appropriate that till a decision is taken by the Waqf Board,
the appointment of Sri. T. Moideenkutty as Manager is
continued provisionally. The 1st respondent-DEO was
therefore directed to extend the tenure of the Manager for a
further period of three months.
2. Subsequently, by order dated 16.09.2025, an Advocate
Commissioner was appointed by this Court to conduct
election to the Managing Committee of the Sangham. The
additional 4th respondent in the writ petition challenged the
interim order dated 16.09.2025 filing W.A. No.2363 of 2025.
A Division Bench of this Court stayed the operation of the
interim order dated 16.09.2025 to the extent it appointed an
Advocate Commissioner to conduct election to the Managing
W.A.Nos.2816 of 2025 & 34 of 2026 13 2026:KER:5245
Committee. The Division Bench made it clear that the
pendency of the writ appeal will not stand in the way of the
appellant pursuing I.A.No.2 of 2025, which is filed seeking to
vacate the interim order dated 01.04.2025.
3. The petitioner in I.A.No.2 of 2025 contends that the
Committee under the management of Sri. Moideenkutty is
continuing though the term of the Committee is expired. The
Committee is helping Sri. Moideenkutty to continue as
Manager. The petitioner in the I.A. seeks to vacate the interim
order dated 01.04.2025.
4. The issue relating to election to the Managing Committee
is pending before the Waqf Board. Parties have approached
the Waqf Tribunal also contending that the property involved
is not waqf property and hence the Waqf Board lacks
jurisdiction. In the midst of the disputes, a Committee, which
was stated to be elected in the year 2002 with a tenure of
two years, is continuing for the last more than three years.
5. This Court noted that the proceedings before the Waqf
Board and Waqf Tribunal may take time for conclusion. In the
meanwhile, the Schools under the Sangham have to function.
Therefore, as an interim measure, this Court permitted the
existing Manager of the School to continue as such
provisionally, as per the interim order dated 01.04.2025. As
the administration of the educational institutions by a
Manager is essential in public interest, this Court has
permitted the existing Manager to continue for the time
being. Pending resolution of the disputes, I find that
continuance of a Manager is essential. I find no reason to
vacate the interim order, which is provisional in nature. I.A.
No.2 of 2025 is therefore dismissed.
W.A.Nos.2816 of 2025 & 34 of 2026 14 2026:KER:5245
Post the writ petition after four weeks."
8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid interim orders, the
appellant-4th respondent has filed the present writ appeals.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the
learned counsel for the 1st respondent, the learned Standing
Counsel for the Kerala State Wakf Board and the learned Senior
Government Pleader.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant-4th respondent
would submit that the 1st respondent-writ petitioner had
previously filed W.P.(C)No.14346 of 2025 seeking similar reliefs,
and as per Ext.R4(C) judgment dated 25.06.2025, that writ
petition was dismissed by this Court. Though the 1 st respondent-
writ petitioner filed W.A.No.1628 of 2025 against the judgment in
W.P.(C)No.14346 of 2025, the Division Bench dismissed the said
writ appeal also by the judgment dated 11.08.2025. The present
attempt of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner is to somehow
exclude itself from the jurisdiction of the Wakf Board by taking a
contention that the properties are not Wakf properties. In fact,
Tharbiyathul Islam Sangham is a registered Society with register
No.2293/RA under the Kerala State Wakf Board. The properties in
which the Madrassa and School are situated belong to the Wakf.
W.A.Nos.2816 of 2025 & 34 of 2026 15 2026:KER:5245
Sri.Moideenkutty was elected as president on 10.12.2016. No
election was conducted after 2016, and the term of the committee
has long expired, and the said Moideenkutty is acting in collusion
with the 1st respondent-writ petitioner, who is supporting him. The
term of Moideenkutty expired in the year 2018, and he made
illegal appointments in the school as it's manager, having come to
the management through the election conducted by the Wakf
Board. The continuation of the same management committee
beyond its term has led to gross corruption. The tenure of the
management body, the qualification of the manager etc., are not
specified as stated in Ext.R4(d) order of the Director of General
Education dated 25.04.2025.
10.1 The learned counsel for the appellant-4th respondent
further submitted that Sri.Moideenkutty filed W.P.(C)No.21872 of
2024 seeking a direction to continue as manager till a decision is
taken on his representation by the District Educational Officer.
Consequently, the District Educational Officer passed an order on
the representation of Moideenkutty permitting him to continue till
the election to the Sangham is conducted with the permission of
the Kerala State Wakf Board. The findings of the learned Single
Judge that the Manager must continue provisionally, undermines
W.A.Nos.2816 of 2025 & 34 of 2026 16 2026:KER:5245
the jurisdiction of the Wakf Board and Wakf Tribunal before whom
the election dispute is pending. Therefore, the impugned orders
are liable to be set aside.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1 st
respondent-writ petitioner submitted that a proper order has been
passed by the learned Single Judge. It is true that there is a civil
suit pending before the Wakf Tribunal against the order of the
Wakf Board in O.P.No.115 of 2024. But according to the learned
counsel, the pendency of the matter before the Wakf Tribunal or
the filing of the previous writ petition by the 1st respondent, which
ended in dismissal, will not restrain the 1st respondent from filing
the present writ petition.
12. The learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State
Wakf Board would submit that the Board has appointed
Moideenkutty as the Manager, and his term has expired. But even
after the expiry of the period, he is claiming the right to continue.
13. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit
that only on the basis of the interim order of this Court, extension
was granted to the Manager.
14. The appellant-4th respondent is challenging the interim
orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition one,
W.A.Nos.2816 of 2025 & 34 of 2026 17 2026:KER:5245
granting an interim relief and the second one refusing to vacate
that interim relief.
15. On the question of maintainability of a writ appeal
under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, against an
interim order passed by a learned Single Judge during the
pendency of the writ petition, the Larger Bench in K.S. Das v.
State of Kerala [1992 (2) KLT 358] held that the word 'order'
in Section 5(i) of the Act includes, apart from other orders, orders
passed by the High Court in miscellaneous petitions filed in the
writ petitions provided the orders are to be in force pending the
writ petition. An appeal would lie against such, if the orders
substantially affect or touch upon the substantial rights or
liabilities of the parties or are matters of moment and cause
substantial prejudice to the parties. The nature of the 'order'
appealable belongs to the category of 'intermediate orders'
referred to by the Apex Court in Madhu Limaye v. State of
Maharashtra [(1977) 4 SCC 551]. The word 'order' is not
confined to 'final order' which disposes of the writ petition. The
'orders' should not however, be ad-interim orders in force pending
the miscellaneous petition or orders merely of a procedural nature.
16. In Thomas P.T. and another v. Bijo Thomas and
W.A.Nos.2816 of 2025 & 34 of 2026 18 2026:KER:5245
others [2021 (6) KLT 196], a Division Bench of this Court
noticed that the view that was upheld by the Larger Bench in K.S.
Das [1992 (2) KLT 358] was that even though an appeal could
be filed against an interlocutory order passed in a writ petition, in
order to be qualified for challenge in an appeal, the order shall be
either substantially affecting or touching upon the substantial
rights or liabilities of the parties or which are matters of moment
and cause substantial prejudice to the parties. According to the
Larger Bench, the nature of the order appealable belongs to the
category of intermediate orders referred to by the Apex Court in
Madhu Limaye [(1977) 4 SCC 551]. It was, however, clarified
by the Larger Bench that such orders should not, however, be ad
interim orders or orders merely of a procedural nature.
17. This Court in State of Kerala v. Pradeepkumar A.V.
[2025 (1) KHC 672] wherein this Court after considering the
issue of maintainability of a writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the
Kerala High Court Act, 1958, against an interim order, by noting
the principles laid down in K.S Das [1992 (2) KLT 358], Madhu
Limaye [(1977) 4 SCC 551] and Thomas P.T. [2021 (6) KLT
196], held that the interim order of the learned Single Judge in
that particular case not being an order merely procedural in nature
W.A.Nos.2816 of 2025 & 34 of 2026 19 2026:KER:5245
interim and being an order touching upon the substantial rights
and liabilities of the parties and causing substantial prejudice to
the appellants therein is an interim order qualified for challenge in
an appeal filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act.
Viewed in the light of the principles laid down in these judgments,
we are of the opinion that the present intra-court appeals are
maintainable under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, since
they affect the substantial rights and liabilities of the parties and
cause substantial prejudice to the appellant.
18. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-
4th respondent, the 1st respondent-writ petitioner had previously
filed W.P.(C)No.14346 of 2025 before this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, and the reliefs sought in that writ
petition are as under:
"i) To issue a writ of prohibition or any other writ, order or
direction to the 1st respondent not to interfere in the
administration of the petitioner Society especially
conducting election to its Managing Committee.
ii) To declare that the "Tharbiyathul Islam Sangham",
Parappur is not wakf property and hence the 1st respondent
has no jurisdiction to interfere in the election and
administration of the petitioner society."
19. From the reliefs sought in the present writ petition, i.e.,
W.A.Nos.2816 of 2025 & 34 of 2026 20 2026:KER:5245
W.P.(C)No.13024 of 2025 and the reliefs sought in
W.P.(C)No.14346 of 2025, it is clear that the 1st respondent has
sought the very same reliefs as that of the present writ petition,
in W.P.(C)No.14346 of 2025 also. By Ext.R4(c) judgment dated
25.06.2025, the learned Single Judge dismissed W.P.(C)No.14346
of 2025, holding that the 1st respondent has an efficacious remedy
before the Wakf Tribunal against the order of the Wakf Board. The
said judgment is confirmed in appeal as per the judgment dated
11.08.2025 in W.A.No.1628 of 2025.
20. During the course of arguments, it has brought out that
a suit in respect of the subject matter is now pending before the
Wakf Tribunal also. However, without disclosing those facts, the
1st respondent-writ petitioner filed the present writ petition before
the learned Single Judge. When the issue of appointment of the
Manager of the school is pending consideration before the Wakf
Board as well as the Wakf Tribunal, the learned Single Judge ought
not have passed the interim order dated 01.04.2025 extending
the period of tenure of the manager for a further period, though
liberty was granted to proceed with the matters pending before
the Wakf Board and Wakf Tribunal. The fact discernible from the
materials placed on record and the submissions made at the Bar
W.A.Nos.2816 of 2025 & 34 of 2026 21 2026:KER:5245
would prima facie show that the present writ petition is nothing
but an abuse of the process of law. In such circumstances, we are
of the considered opinion that the impugned orders dated
01.04.2025 and 18.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge
are liable to be set aside.
In the result, these writ appeals are allowed by setting aside
the impugned order dated 01.04.2025, passed by the learned
Single Judge in the writ petition, and the order dated 18.11.2025
in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in that writ petition. It is made clear that
parties to these writ appeals may seek the final disposal of
W.P.(C)No.13024 of 2025 before the learned Single Judge
expeditiously, pointing out the urgency and the pendency of the
lis before the Wakf Board as well as the Wakf Tribunal.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
nak
W.A.Nos.2816 of 2025 & 34 of 2026 22 2026:KER:5245
APPENDIX OF WA NO. 34 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23-09-2025 IN
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17-12-2025 IN
