Disposed

The Secretary, Kannamangalam West v. the Chief Executive Officer

Kerala HC11 Mar 2011CRP/319/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a revision petition against the Wakf Tribunal's rejection of a stay on elections to manage a Wakf. In a writ petition, the Court allowed the petition in part, directing the Wakf Board to consider objections regarding voter eligibility before holding the election, to be completed within two months, ensuring democratic election of the Mahal Committee.

What did the court decide?

C.R.P No. 319/2010 dismissed; W.P(C) No. 34455 of 2010 allowed in part directing Wakf Board to consider voter objections within two months before election.

The Secretary, Kannamangalam West Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶5

CRP.No.(WAKF ACT)NO. 319 of 2010() -------------------------------------------------------I.A.NO.198/2010 IN OP.9/2010 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE ....................

¶6

REVISION PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS IN I.A. & OP:

¶7

------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. THE SECRETARY, KANNAMANGALAM WEST KARATTALUNGAL HIDAYATHUL ANAM SANGHAM, REGISTERED NO.274/83, KANNAMANGALAM AMSOM, DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY ITS SECRETARY C.P.MUHAMMED MASTER, S/O.KUNHI POCKER, PERUVALLOR AMSOM DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2. C.P.MUHAMMED MASTER, S/O.KUNHI POCKER, AGED 51 YEARS, PERUVALLOR AMSOM DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

3. NEYYAN MOHAMED KUTTY HAJI, S/O.MAYIN KUTTY, AGED 58 YEARS, KANNAMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

4. EDAYAT SULAIMAN MUSLIYAR, S/O.AHAMMED, AGED 59 YEARS, KANNAMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.FIROZ, SRI.SHAJNA.M.

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN I.A. AND OP:

¶13

-------------------------------------------------------------------------1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, V.I.P.ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN.

Kss

..2/-

..2...

CRP.NO.319/2010

2. EDAYATT ABDUL LATHEEF,

¶19

S/O.ADAM, AGED 55 YEARS, KANNAMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK.

¶20

3. EDAYATT AHAMMED, S/O.MOHAMMED MUSLIYAR, AGED 40 YEARS, KANNAMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK.

¶21

4. P.P.ALAVIKUTTY HAJI, S/O.MOIDEEN, AGED 75 YEARS, KANNAMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, PRESIDENT, KANNAMANGALAM WEST KARATTALUNGAL HIDAYATHUL ANAM SANGHAM.

¶22

*ADDL.R5 & R6 IMPLEADED:

¶23

R5. SULAIMAN, S/O.ENDIN, KOYAPPAYIL HOUSE, KANNAMANGALAM AMSOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶24

R6. MUHAMMED KUTTY, S/O.AHMED KUTTY, CHAKKIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ..DO..DO...

¶25

**(ADDL.R5 & R6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 20/01/2011 IN I.A.NO.189/11 IN CRP. 319/2010)*

¶26

R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN, SC, WAKF BOARD R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS R5 & R6 BY ADVS.SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM, SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN.

¶27

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2011 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 34455 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

Kss

¶29

R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶30

¶31

**C.R.P No.319 of 2010-B and W.P(C) No.34455 of 2010-F *******************************

¶32

Dated this the 11^th day of March, 2011

¶33

ORDER/JUDGMENT

¶34

BASANT, J.

¶35

The Wakf Board by its order dated 08.03.2010 had directed that Advocate P.Muhammed Haneef, Kozhikode, be appointed as returning officer to conduct election to the mahal committee of the Hidayathul Anam Sangham, according to the bye laws. The said Sangham is the Wakf. This direction is obviously issued by the Wakf Board in exercise of its powers of supervision under Section 32 of the Wakf Act.

¶36

The said direction was challenged before the Wakf Tribunal. By an interim application, a direction was sought that the proposed election be stayed. The Wakf Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the said prayer. This revision petition is directed against the impugned order rejecting the prayer for an interim order restraining the conduct of election.

¶37

We have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the respondents. Admittedly the period of the elected office bearers to the Mahal Committee as per the bye

¶38

C.R.P No.319 of 2010-B and W.P(C) No.34455 of 2010-F 2

¶39

laws has come to an end. The Wakf is being now managed by the Mahal Committee appointed by an adhoc arrangement by the Sub Divisional Magistrate because of some law and order situation which was perceived.

¶40

We have no hesitation to agree that an elected mahal committee must come into existence as early as possible and take over the management of the Wakf. We have been taken through the impugned order. We find absolutely nothing which can persuade us to take a different view than what the Wakf Tribunal has taken. The anxiety of the Wakf Tribunal, it is evident, is in favour of democratic election being held to the mahal committee and we find that the approach made by the Wakf Tribunal is absolutely justified.

¶41

We have no reason to assume that the election shall be conducted in violation of the provisions of the bye laws. We need only mention that the returning officer must ensure that the election is conducted strictly in compliance with the bye laws. No further or better directions appear to be necessary in this revision petition.

¶42

We now come to W.P(C) No.34455 of 2010. The

¶43

C.R.P No.319 of 2010-B and W.P(C) No.34455 of 2010-F

¶44

¶45

petitioners therein are 7 in number. The returning officer has already published the final list of eligible voters. There are 290 such voters, it is submitted. The voters' list has been published.

¶46

The 7 petitioners in W.P(c) No.34455 of 2010 have a grievance. According to them, they are entitled to vote. Their claim as voters has not been accepted by the returning officer. Their names do not appear in the list of eligible voters. They had submitted Ext.P2 representation before the Wakf Board. The Wakf Board may be directed to consider that representation and pass appropriate orders. Without and before considering Ext.P2 representation, the election may not be permitted to be held.

¶47

The Wakf Board, the 1^st respondent in W.P(C) No.34455 of 2010, submits that Ext.P2 is the only written objection received from the voters about the non inclusion of their names in the final voters list. It is submitted that the Wakf Board shall be considering the objections raised by the petitioners in Ext.P2 at the earliest. Election shall be conducted only thereafter, it is submitted.

¶48

The learned counsel for the petitioners in C.R.P No.319 of 2010 submits that some other voters, whose name

¶49

C.R.P No.319 of 2010-B and W.P(C) No.34455 of 2010-F

¶50

¶51

have also not been included in the final voters list, have also raised objections. The learned counsel for the Wakf Board disputes this assertion. We need only mention that the Wakf Board must consider such objections as expeditiously as possible – at any rate, within a period of two months from this date, so that the election can be carried out as expeditiously as possible.

¶52

With the above observations, C.R.P No.319 of 2010 is dismissed and W.P(c) No.34455 of 2010 is allowed in part.

¶53

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

¶54

(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)

¶55

rtr/

The Secretary, Kannamangalam West v. the Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Secretary, Kannamangalam West v. the Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Annie Joseph and Others Vs T.a.George @ Sebastian and Others

Alex Mathews Philips Vs Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board

Jose Vs the State of Kerala

Satheesan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Karunagappa

Pothen Thomas Vs Dy.Supdt.of Police

Abdulla Hajee Vs State of Kerala