Dismissed

A.M.Abubacker v. Muhamma Masjidathul Muhammadiya Sangam

Kerala HC26 May 2016CRP(WAKF)/200/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a civil revision petition seeking interference with an order by the Wakf Tribunal that denied a request to conduct elections for the first respondent's executive committee, holding that challenges to alleged illegal elections must be pursued through appropriate proceedings rather than this revision.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition dismissed.

A.M.Abubacker Vs Muhamma Masjidathul Muhammadiya Sangam — Kerala HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2016/5TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶6

CRP(WAKF).No. 200 of 2016 ()

¶7

(Against the order in I.A.No.74/2016 in O.S.No.43/2015 of the Wakf Tribunal, Kollam)

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

¶9

¶10

A.M.ABUBACKER,AGED 63 YEARS, S/O MAMU,ALACKAL VEEDU,MUHAMMA PANCHAYATH, WARD-13,MUHAMMA.P.O, ALAPPUZHA.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ SRI.K.P.MAJEED

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & WAKF BOARD/DEFENDANTS:

¶13

¶14

MUHAMMA MASJIDATHUL MUHAMMADIYA SANGAM, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY-688525.

¶15

HANASS,AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.KOYA,KATTIPARAMBIL,GENERAL SECRETARY,MUHAMMA

¶16

MASJIDATHUL,MUHAMMADIYA SANGAM JAMA-ATH,MUHAMMA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,PIN-688525.

¶17

SALIM,AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.SULAIMAN,JAMA-ATH JOINT SECRETARY,MUHAMMA

¶18

MASJIDATHUL,MUHJAMMADIYA SANGAM JAMA-ATH,MUHAMMA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,PIN-688525.

¶19

RIJAS, AGED 28 YEARS,S/O.ABDUL BASHEER,KOCHUVELIYIL WARD-8, VEED NO.896,MUHAMMA MASJIDATHUL MUHAMMADIYA

¶20

SANGAM JAMA-ATH,KHAJANJI-688525. 5. K.K.NASSAR,AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.KUNJU,MUHAMMED,KOCHUVELIYIL WARD-8, VEED NO.896,MUHAMMA MASJIDATHUL MUHAMMADIYA

¶21

SANGAM JAMA-ATH,KHAJANJI-688525. 6. MUHAMMED MANSOOR,AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU,KUNNUMPURATH,WARD NO.13,VEEDU NO.499, MUHAMMA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688525.

¶22

THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, VIP ROAD,KALOOR,KOCHI-17.

¶23

BY SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA, SC, KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD

¶24

THIS CRP (WAKF ACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

CRP (wakf)No.200/2016

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶28

ANNEXURE-I TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.2.2016 IN I.A.No. 41/2016 in O.S.No.43/2015 OF THE TRIBUNAL.

TRUE COPY

p.s.to judge

CSS/

Antony Dominic & Dama Seshadri Naidu, JJ.

¶33

CRP(Wakf) No.200 of 2016

¶34

Dated this the 26^th day of May, 2016

¶35

ORDER

¶36

Antony Dominic, J.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶38

learned standing counsel appearing for the 7^th respondent.

¶39

This revision is filed impugning the order passed by the Wakf Tribunal, Kollam in I.A.No.74/2016 in O.S.No.43/2015. By the said I.A., the petitioner herein requested the Tribunal to issue appropriate orders for the conduct of the election to the executive committee of the first respondent. However, that prayer was denied on the basis that on 7.2.2016, the general body has already conducted the election. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no such election held on 7.2.2016.

¶40

Having heard the submissions made, according to us, so long as the fact remains that a group of people

¶41

Crpwk 2

¶42

have been allegedly elected the executive committee of the first respondent, even if the petitioner has a case that the same was illegal, it is up to the petitioner to work out his remedies in appropriate proceedings against the same. This could not have been done in the manner as prayed for by him in the I.A. in which the impugned order was passed. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed.

¶43

Sd/-Antony Dominic, Judge

¶44

sd/-Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge

¶45

css/ true copy

¶46

P.S.TO JUDGE

A.M.Abubacker v. Muhamma Masjidathul Muhammadiya Sangam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.M.Abubacker v. Muhamma Masjidathul Muhammadiya Sangam

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

M/S.Kodiyeri Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Late Smt.Khairunnisa Ebrahim

M/S. Best Buy Electronics Vs State

Smt. Neeta Anto Vs the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (Tds)

Arya Devi Vs the State of Kerala

Union of India Vs K.Parasurama Iyer