M.a.Aboobacker v. Kerala State Wakf Board
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court held that the power to appoint an interim Muthavally and conduct related elections lies exclusively with the Wakf Board under Sections 32 and 27 of the Wakf Act, without delegation to the Chief Executive Officer. The court vacated the Tribunal's order remanding it for fresh consideration.
What did the court decide?
The impugned order of the Tribunal is vacated and the case remanded for consideration by the Tribunal in light of this judgment so that the matter can go to the Wakf Board.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/9TH MAGHA, 1937
CRP(WAKF).No. 40 of 2016 ()
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WOA 12/2015 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM DATED 14.1.2016
PETITIONER(S):
1. M.A.ABOOBACKER, MATTAN, CHOTTY, CHITTADI P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
2. MUHAMMED SEETHI P.M, PATTANI VEETTIL, CHOTTY, CHITTADI P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the power to issue an order appointing an interim Muthavally lies exclusively with the Wakf Board and cannot be delegated to the Chief Executive Officer.
Whether matters connected with the appointment of a Muthavally and the conduct of an election for such office vest with the Wakf Board.
Whether the impugned order of the Wakf Tribunal requiring parties to place lists of candidates before the Board needs to be vacated and remanded.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
M.A.Aboobacker
- petitioner
Muhammed Seethi P.M
- respondent
Kerala State Wakf Board
- respondent
Masjidul Khadhariya Muslim Jama Ath
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court