Allowed

Sheik Muhideen S.N. v. Palayam Muslim Juma-Ath

Kerala HC6 Aug 2012CRP(WAKF)/320/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that an elected body's right to take charge cannot be prevented without exceptional circumstances. It modified the Wakf Board's order to mandate handing over accounts and documents to the auditor in the general body meeting before the new committee takes over.

What did the court decide?

Modified the impugned interim order of the Wakf Board to direct the outgoing committee to hand over accounts and documents to the auditor in the general body meeting before the new committee takes cha

Sheik Muhideen S.N. Vs Palayam Muslim Juma-Ath — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,

¶5

MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/15TH SRAVANA 1934

¶6

CRP(WAKF).No. 320 of 2012 ()

¶7

IA.NO.155/2012 IN OA.7/2012 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM

¶8

PETITIONER(S):

¶9

SHEIK MUHIDEEN S.N., S/O.NIZAMUDHEEN, AGED 42 YEARS, S.L.APARTMENT, KURUP LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. PALAYAM MUSLIM JUMA-ATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE, A.KAMALUDHEEN, S/O.HASSAINAR PILLAI, NEW CASTLE TOWER, AMBALAMUKKU, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034

¶13

2.THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, WAKF BOARD OFFICE, COCHIN-17

¶14

R2 BY ADV.SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN, SC, WAKF BOARD R1 BY ADV.SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ

¶15

THIS CRP (WAKF ACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURERS:

¶18

ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.1.2012 IN O.P.12/12 OF WAKF BOARD

¶19

ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.7.2012 IN I.A NO.101/12 IN O.P.142/12 OF WAKF BOARD

¶20

ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN O.P.NO.142/12 FILED BEFORE THE WAKF BOARD

¶21

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURERS: NIL

¶22

//TRUE COPY//

¶23

P A TO JUDGE

¶24

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶25

¶26

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.

¶27

C.R.P.No.320 of 2012

¶28

Dated this the 6^th day of August, 2012

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

¶31

Adv.T.H.Abdul Azeez takes notice for the first respondent. Adv.A.A.Abul Hassan, standing counsel, takes notice for the second respondent.

¶32

The short issue is as to whether an elected Juma-ath Committee should be prevented from taking charge. That appears to be the effect of the impugned order of the Wakf Tribunal, in the back drop of the order of the Wakf Board that is impugned before the Tribunal. By no standards of practice and procedure governing grant of interim orders, could the right of an elected body to take charge be prevented. Judicial intervention with the process of election and to interdict an elected body from taking charge is resorted to only in

¶33

CRP 320 /12

¶34

¶35

exceptionally exceptional situations. At any rate, it would be even more rigorous, when the question of interim relief in such matters comes up. We do not find any reason why Annexure-A2 order dated 05.07.2012 issued by the Kerala State Wakf Board on I.A No.101 of 2012 in O.P No.142 of 2012 should not be permitted to operate. All that calls for is that the out-going committee shall give charge to the newly elected committee after producing the statement of accounts and documents for auditing the accounts of the Palayam Muslim Juma-ath. That direction of the Wakf Board is a compulsion on the out going committee to immediately produce the statement of accounts and documents under its control to pave way to the newly elected Juma-ath committee taking charge. It is hereby ordered that this shall be done in the General Body Meeting to be convened tomorrow as per notice already stated to have been issued. The impugned interim order of Wakf Board is modified to that effect. Let the documents be handed over in the General Body and taken over by the Auditor in the presence of the General Body. The Auditor from the Wakf Board shall be present in the meeting of the Jumaath meeting to carry out this direction.

¶36

CRP 320 /12

¶37

¶38

C.R.P ordered accordingly.

¶39

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge.

¶40

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge.

¶41

mns

Sheik Muhideen S.N. v. Palayam Muslim Juma-Ath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheik Muhideen S.N. v. Palayam Muslim Juma-Ath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Incometax Vs M/S.Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. Cochin

17~ Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S.Harrisons Malayalam Financial Servic

Kunjeen Musliar Vs Meppara Juma Masjid Committee

M/S.Aspinwall & Co.Ltd Vs Commissioner of Incometax

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Sreedevi

Union of India Vs Saraswathi Amma