Disposed

Chakkiparambath Abdul Rasheed v. Chenakkal Jum Ath Palli

Kerala HC16 Nov 2016CRP(WAKF)/261/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Civil Revision Petition alleging impropriety in a 2012 election, directing that the core dispute be addressed in a fresh suit filed regarding a 2016 election. The court restrained termination of Wakf employees and restricted expenditures to maintenance and daily activities.

What did the court decide?

Dropped the revision petition regarding the 2012 election; directed the Wakf Tribunal to consider interlocutory applications in the subsequent suit; prohibited employee termination; restricted Wakf ex

Chakkiparambath Abdul Rasheed Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/25TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶7

CRP(WAKF).No. 261 of 2012 ()

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.No.353/2012, 354/2012, 355/2012 & 356/2012 IN OP 14/2007 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE DATED 19-06-2012

¶9

PETITIONER/PETITIONER/3RD PARTY:

¶10

¶11

CHAKKIPARAMBATH ABDUL RASHEED S/O.BEERAN, AGED 43 YEARS, MUNNIYOOR AMSOM DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK MALAPPURAM.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.) SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶14

CHENAKKAL JUMA- ATH PALLI PARIPALANA COMMITTEE, MOONNIYOOR, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY ERANIKKAL MUHAMMED HAJI S/O.AHAMMED KUTTY, PARAMMEL HOUSE, A.C.BAZAR P.O.MOONNIYOOR, THIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM-676306.

¶15

ERANIKKAL MUHAMMED HAJI

¶16

S/O.AHAMMED KUTTY, AGED 65 YEARS, PARAMMEL HOUSE, A.C.BAZAR P.O.MOONNIYOOR, MOONNIYOOR AMSOM DESOM THIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM

¶17

SECRETARY TO CHENAKKAL JUMA-ATH PALLI PARIPALANA COMMITTEE MOONNIYOOR-676306.

¶18

KERALA WAKF BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER NEAR KALOOR STADIUM, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682017.

¶19

KOLAPPILAKKAL MOIDEEN HAJI, S/O.ALAVIKUTTY HAJI, PRESIDENT MONNIYOOR CHENAKKALL JUMA-ATH PALLI PARIPALANA COMMITTEE SALAMATH NAGAR, MOONNIYOOR SOUTH, TIRURANGADI TALUK MALAPPURAM-676306

¶20

NARIKKOTT MECHERY HASSAN KUTTY HAJI, S/O.KUNHI, GENERAL SECRETARY MUNNIYOOR CHENAKKAL JUMA-ATH PALLI PARIPALANA COMMITTEE MECHERY HOUSE, MUNNIYOOR P.O., MUNNIYOOR AMSOM DESOM TIRURANGADI TALUK-676306.

¶21

AVARANKUTTY,

¶22

S/O.ALI, AZHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, P.O.MUNNIYOOR

¶23

CRP(WAKF).No. 261 of 2012 (B)

¶24

-2-

¶25

MUNNIYOOR AMSOM DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK-676306.

¶26

AHAMMED, S/O.MUHAMMED,

¶27

MUSTHAFA MANZIL, P.O.MUNNIYOOR MUNNIYOOR AMSOM DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK-676306.

¶28

ADDL.R8 IMPLEADED:

¶29

ADDL.R8: P.ABOOBACKER SIDHEEQUE, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER, C/O. INSTITUTE OF MOBILE TECHNOLOGY (IMT) THALAPARA, MUNNIYOOR, MALAPPURAM.

¶30

(ADDL.R8 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.22.11.2012 IN I.A.1444/12 IN CRP(WAKF) 261/2012).

¶31

ADDL.R9 IMPLEADED:

¶32

ADDL.R9: ABOOBACKER MOOKKUMMAL, S/O KUNJIKAMMU, AGED 61, HAJIRA MANZIL, CHINAKKAL, MOONIYUR POST, PIN – 676 311.

¶33

(ADDL.R9 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11.3.2015 IN I.A.No.514/15 IN CRP(WAKF) 261/12)

¶34

R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN, SC, WAKF BOARD R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA, SC, KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD R4-R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB R4-R5 BY ADV. SMT.FRINDA PAILY R6-R7 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS R8 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN R8 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.HARISH ADDL.R9 BY ADV. SRI.N.M.MADHU

¶35

THIS CRP (WAKF ACT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

CRP(WAKF).No. 261 of 2012 (B)

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶39

ANNEXURE A1	COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD.10.3.2011.
ANNEXURE A2	COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD.
ANNEXURE A3	COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD.10.5.2012.
ANNEXURE A4	COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.18.5.2012.
ANNEXURE A5 ANNEXURE A5(a) CHENAKKAL JUMA-	COPY OF THE BYE-LAW OF CHENAKKAL JUMA-ATH PALLI PARIPALANA COMMITTEE. COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF ATH PALLI PARIPALANA COMMITTEE.
ANNEXURE A6	COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT ALONG WITH I.A.No.355/2012.
ANNEXURE A7:	COPY OF RECEIPT NO.29049 DT.9.1.2011.
ANNEXURE A8:	COPY OF ADDITIONAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT DT.4.7.2012.

¶40

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:

¶41

ANNEXURE R8(A):	COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY ADV.COMMISSIONER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL.
ANNEXURE -A:	COPY OF LETTER GIVEN BY THE SECRETARY OF MOONNIYOOR SOUTH PARAKKAVU MAHALLUY MASJIDURAHMAN PALLI COMMITTEE TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE C1:	COPY OF NOTICE DT.23.11.2015.
ANNEXURE R1:	COPY OF GEOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE 1ST DIVISION.
ANNEXURE R2:	COPY OF GEOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE 2ND DIVISION.
ANNEXURE R3:	COPY OF GEOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE 3RD DIVISION.
ANNEXURE R4:	COPY OF GEOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE 4TH DIVISION.
ANNEXURE C1:	COPY OF MINUTES OF MEETING DT.19.8.16.
ANNEXURE C2:	COPY OF LETTER.
ANNEXURE C3:	COPY OF NOTICE OF THE MEETING.

True copy

P.S. to Judge

dsn

V.CHITAMBARESH & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶46

--------------------------------------------------

¶47

C.R.P.(WAKF) No.261 OF 2012

¶48

--------------------------------------------------

¶49

DATED THIS THE 16^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016

¶50

ORDER

¶51

Chitambaresh, J.

¶52

The interim order dated 27.10.2016 passed in the above Civil Revision Petition reads thus:

¶53

“The parties are at variance as to whether an election of the Managing Committee of Chenakkal Jumaath Palli Paripalana Committee was really conducted at 7 p.m. on 19.8.2016 or not during the pendency of this Civil Revision Petition. We therefore appoint Mr.Abdul Raoof Pallipath as Advocate Commissioner to immediately visit the Mahal and verify from the records as to whether an election as contended was really held or not.

¶54

The Advocate Commissioner is free to enquire with the members of the Mahal as to the conduct of the election and also check up from the Wakf Board as to the intimation if any received about the election. The Advocate Commissioner shall be provided with conveyance by the petitioner and also a sum of ₹30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) as initial remuneration

¶55

List on 31.10.2016. The Advocate Commissioner shall endeavour to file an interim report by that time.”

¶56

The Advocate Commissioner has filed an interim report

¶57

dated 31.10.2016 concluding as follows:

¶58

C.R.P.(Wakf)No.261 OF 2012

¶59

-2-

¶60

“12. From the above materials collected by me my findings are as follows:

¶61

(i) A General body meeting of the Chenakkal Jumaath Palli Paripalana Committee was conducted on 19.8.2016 with Annexure C3 notice to some of the members of the Mahal.

¶62

(ii) A panel consisting 38 executive members were presented in the meeting and the same was approved unanimously as there was no rival panel as revealed from Annexure C1 attached to this report.

¶63

(iii) The selection of the 38 executive members was communicated to the Wakf Board as per Annexure C2.

¶64

(iv) The usual procedure for conducting election, such as publication of voters list, inviting objection, hearing on objection, publication of final voters list, declaration of election date, appointment of returning officer for conducting election and voting in a democratic manner, etc. were not followed by the committee.

¶65

(v) Many of the members of the mahal were not given notice of meeting and the formation of the new committee was not made public.

¶66

(vi) Most of the members of the Mahal including the persons questioned by me, want the matter to be settled amicably as a fight in the same

¶67

C.R.P.(Wakf)No.261 OF 2012

¶68

-3-

¶69

community and sometime in the same family is creating a lot of hardship and mental agony to them. The committee members and the revision petitioners also expressed their willingness for settlement.”

¶70

The revision petitioner invites our attention to the observations of the Commissioner enumerated as (iv) and (v) as above. The report of the Advocate Commissioner is seen objected to by some of the respondents in the Civil Revision Petition. We need not delve deep into those aspects since the revision petitioner has now filed a suit challenging the election. W.O.S.No.89/2016 has accordingly been filed on the file of the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode challenging the election allegedly conducted on 19.8.2016. The present Civil Revision Petition pertains to the election conducted as early as in the year 2012 and the term has already expired.

¶71

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode to consider the interlocutory applications filed in W.O.S.No.89/2016 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The services of the

¶72

C.R.P.(Wakf)No.261 OF 2012

¶73

-4-

¶74

employees in the Wakf shall not be terminated pending final orders in the interlocutory application in W.O.S.No.89/2016 as directed above. It is also made clear that no expenditure of the amount available with the Wakf shall be made, except for the day-to-day activities and also for carrying out the maintenance work to the building. The Wakf Tribunal is also empowered to depute an Advocate Commissioner to monitor the maintenance work necessary.

¶75

Sd/-

¶76

V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE

¶77

Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶78

dsn

¶79

True copy

¶80

P.S. to Judge

Chakkiparambath Abdul Rasheed v. Chenakkal Jum Ath Palli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chakkiparambath Abdul Rasheed v. Chenakkal Jum Ath Palli

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

Henkel Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs G.Hariharan

V.K. Ebrahim Vs Pazhakotu Mayan

Kuttamassery Chalakkal Mahallu Vs the Kerala State Wakf Board

Nabeesa, W/O.Late Kareem Vs Nabeesa, W/O.Sheriff

Vaikom Town Muslim Jama Ath Vs Sulaiman P

Kalliyanikutty Vs Narayanan