Dismissed

Ali , S/O.Kunoyi v. Sulaiman T.T.

Kerala HC13 Mar 2014WP(C)/1483/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner,President of Muslim Niskara Palli, sought police protection against respondents alleging interference and threats. The Court noted the dispute involved civil administration of a mosque. Consequently, the Court declined to grant directions for police protection as the matter was essentially civil in nature.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the police to interfere only if an offence is committed.

Ali , S/O.Kunoyi Vs Sulaiman T.T. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/22ND PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 1483 of 2014 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

ALI ,AGED 74 YEARS,S/O.KUNOYI, THATOOR POYIL P.O., MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 661.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. SULAIMAN T.T.,S/O.ALAVI, THEKKUMTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, THATHOOR, PAZHOOR P.O., PIN-673 661.

¶11

2. IBRAHIM SAKHAFI,S/O.ABOOBAKKER, PULPPARAMBIL HOUSE, THATHOOR, PAZHOOR P.O., PIN-673 661.

¶12

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAVOOR POLICE STATION, MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 660.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHAMMED PUZHAKKARA

¶14

SRI.T.K.HASSAN R3 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts

¶17

WP(C).No. 1483 of 2014 (I)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.3886/2005 OF ADDITIONAL SRO, MAVOOR.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE MAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX ASSESSMENT REGISTER MAINTAINED BY THE MAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT FOR THE PERIOD 2013-2014.

¶23

EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 12-7-2013 IN OS.52/2011 PASSED BY THE WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE.

¶24

EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 28-12-2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING RECEIPT OF EXT.P5 REPRESENTATION BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶27

EXHIBIT R1 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACTS OF BUILDINGS TAX ASSESSMENT REGISTER OF MAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14

¶28

EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT R1

¶29

EXHIBIT R2 TRUE COPY OF THE WAKF DEED NO.3 533 OF 1961

¶30

EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT R2

¶31

EXHIBIT R3 TRUE COPY OF THE KAANADHARAM NO.2523 OF 1952

¶32

EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT R3

¶33

EXHIBIT R4 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX ASSESSMENT REGISTER OF MAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT FOR THE YEAR 1992-1997

¶34

EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT R4

¶35

EXHIBIT R5 TRUE COPY OF THE MASS MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY LOCAL BENEFICIARIES OF THE WAKF TO THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER

¶36

EXHIBIT R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT R5

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

MANJULA CHELLUR,C.J. &

¶41

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶42

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(c) No.1483 of 2014 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of March, 2014

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

Manjula Chellur,CJ

¶45

Petitioner, who claims to be the President of Thatoor Poyil Muslim Niskara Palli of Kozhikode, is before this Court seeking police protection against party respondents, alleging that they are interfering with day-to-day affairs of mosque and threatening him with dire consequences.

¶46

Party respondents have appeared through counsel. Learned counsel submits, party respondents have already filed a suit against petitioner herein and said suit is dismissed and a revision is pending.

¶47

The fact remains that there seems to be some dispute regarding administration of mosque at Kozhikode. Since nature of dispute seems to be of civil nature, we decline to grant any effective order. However, it is needless to say that

¶48

W.P.(c) No.1483 of 2014

¶49

¶50

respondent police shall interfere, if any offence is committed or attempted to be committed.

¶51

With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶52

MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶53

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.

¶54

sj 14/03

Ali , S/O.Kunoyi v. Sulaiman T.T.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ali , S/O.Kunoyi v. Sulaiman T.T.

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 Income TAX-1 Vs M/S Poabs Granite Products Pvt. Ltd.

State of Kerala Vs Sri.v.P.Hemachandran

State of Kerala Vs M/S.Peediakkal Saw Mill and Timbers

Sheela Paul Vs C.P.Chitra

Craft Hospital, Kodungallur Vs Jasminsha M.

P.S.Salim Vs S.I of Police, Muvattupuzha