Allowed

Cheriya Koya v. Lakshadweep State Wakf Board and Others

Kerala HC10 Mar 2017WP(C)/7910/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order by the Executive Magistrate directing the Wakf Board to issue notices regarding Muthawalli returns and management. The Court held the Magistrate lacked authority under the Wakf Act to pass such directions and set aside the impugned orders.

What did the court decide?

Exhibits P3 and P5 were set aside; appointment of Muthawalli and Wakf administration shall be subject to orders of appropriate jurisdictions after hearing parties.

Cheriya Koya Vs Lakshadweep State Wakf Board… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/19TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 7910 of 2010 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

CHERIYA KOYA, PATTINIODA CHACHADA, AGATTI, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN, SMT.GEETHA P.MENON, SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. LAKSHADWEEP STATE WAKF BOARD, NEAR DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, SANTHI PATH ROAD, KAVARATTI-682 555, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

¶11

2. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, AGATTI ISLAND, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP.

¶12

3. EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, AGATTI ISLAND, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP.

¶13

4. MOHAMMED KOYA, PATTINIODA CHACHADA, AGATTI, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP.

¶14

R1 TO R3 BY SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, SC.

¶15

SRI.MANU.S, CGC. R4 BY ADVS. SMT.K.P.AMBIKA, SMT.A.M.FASEENA, SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

WP(C).No. 7910 of 2010 (K)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶21

EXT.P1 DATED 26/06/2006, COPY OF THE ORDER F. NO.11/3/2005- WAKF ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1.

¶22

EXT.P2 DATED 15/12/2008, COPY OF THE ORDER F. NO.11/3/2005-WAKF ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1.

¶23

EXT.P3 DATED 17/01/2009, COPY OF THE MESSAGE SENT BY RESPONDENT NO.1 TO RESPONDENT NO.2.

¶24

EXT.P4 DATED 30/01/2009, COPY OF THE NOTICE F. NO.13/25/2008-DCA ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2.

¶25

EXT.P5 DATED 04/03/2010, COPY OF THE ORDER MISC. CASE NO.1/2010 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2.

¶26

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶27

EXT.R4A COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1/2000 REGISTERED AT SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, AGATTI.

¶28

EXT.R4B COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE WAKF BOARD BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXT.R4C COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶34

W.P.(C) No.7910 of 2010

¶35

Dated this the 10^th day of March, 2017

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

The only question raised in this writ petition is with regard

¶38

to the competence of the 3^rd respondent to pass an order in the nature of Ext.P5.

¶39

Ext.P5 is an order issued by the 3^rd respondent exercising the powers of the Executive Magistrate directing the Wakf Board to issue notice to the petitioner and the 4^th respondent for submitting returns of their respective tenures as Muthawallis of the Wakf and directing the petitioner to relinquish the management to his brother, the 4^th respondent.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 as well as the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent.

¶41

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent that a Civil Revision Petition as CRP No.424/2011 had

¶42

been filed by the petitioner herein before this Court which had been disposed of by judgment dated 23.07.2014, refusing to

¶43

W.P.(C) No.7910/2010 2

¶44

interfere in the order passed by the Wakf Tribunal in WTOA 1/2011 on 27.07.2011 to the same effect. I am of the opinion that these are matters which have to be adjudicated in appropriate jurisdictions.

¶45

The issue involved in this writ petition is with regard to the appointment of Muthawalli of a Wakf. The appointment of Muthavalli and any change to be effected thereof, is governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act. From the consideration of the materials placed on record, I do not find any provision or source of power for the 3^rd respondent to issue a direction as contained in Ext.P5.

¶46

In the above view of the matter, Exts.P3 and P5 are set aside. It is directed that the question of appointment of Muthawalli and administration of Wakf shall be subject to orders passed in appropriate jurisdictions, after hearing the parties.

¶47

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶50

smp

Cheriya Koya v. Lakshadweep State Wakf Board and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cheriya Koya v. Lakshadweep State Wakf Board and Others

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

Sandya Vs the Director of Public Instructions & or

Magi Jacob Vs the Assistant Educational Officer

Suresh R.S. Vs State of Kerala

A.P.Jalajakumar Vs State of Kerala

Satheesan Vs the Deputy Director

P.B.Wilson Vs the State of Kerala