Allowed

P.M.Basheer v. Kanajirappally Nainarpally Central Jama-Ath

Kerala HC20 Mar 2018OP (WAKF)/12/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Original petition challenging an order treating the petitioner's subscription as a donation. The High Court exercised inherent jurisdiction pending a larger election dispute to direct the mosque to treat the amount as subscription and issue a fresh receipt.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; first respondent directed to issue fresh receipt for Rs. 420/- monthly subscription and continue receiving amounts till disposal of pending tribunal case.

P.M.Basheer Vs Kanajirappally Nainarpally Central… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

OP (WT).No. 12 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN WOS 27/2016 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM AGAINST THE ORDER IN WOS 42/2016 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

P.M.BASHEER AGED 64 YEARS, S/O MEERANNAN RAWTHER, THENNAMMAKKAL, KANJIRAPPALLY.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF

¶10

SRI.K.ASHOK SARAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. KANAJIRAPPALLY NAINARPALLY CENTRAL JAMA-ATH KANJIRAPPALLY PO, KOTTAYAM.686507, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, MOHAMMED FAIZIE.

¶13

2. P.M. ABDUL SALAM, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O P.M MEERANNAKNKUTTUY, PARAKKAL HOUSE, PARATHODU, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM-686507, (PRESIDENT, KANJAIRAPPALLY NAINARAPALLY CENTRAL JAMA-ATH, KANAJIAPPALLY PO, KOTTAYAM.686507.

¶14

3. MOHAMMED FAIZIE, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O MEERANNKUTTY, CHERUKARAYIL, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM, (SECRETARY, KANJAIRAPPALLY NAINARAPALLY CENTRAL JAMA-ATH, KANAJIAPPALLY PO, KOTTAYAM.686507.

¶15

4. KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD,

¶16

V.I.P ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN.17, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶17

5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT & MINORITY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695001.

¶18

R1 -R 3 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR

¶19

R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NICHOLAS JOSEPH R4 BY SRI.T.P.SAJID, SC, KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD

¶20

THIS OP (WT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

OP (WT).No. 12 of 2018 ()

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIO	NER'S	EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT	P1	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13-06.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 07.03.2017 FILED BEFORE THE WAKF TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM IN W.O.S NO.42 OF 2016.
EXHIBIT	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P(W) NO.60 OF 2017 DATED 22.11.17.
EXHIBIT	P4	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P5	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.187 DATED 01.12.2017.
EXHIBIT	P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2018 PASSED BY THE WAKF TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM IN I.A 20/2018 IN WOS.42/2016.
EXHIBIT	P7	TRUE COPY OF G.O(MS) 528/2016/RD DATED 28.09.2016.
EXHIBIT	P8	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O (MS)330/2017/RD DATED 04.10.2017.
EXHIBIT	P9	TRUE COPY OF IA NO.118/2018 IN WOS 27/2016 OF THE WAKF TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULALM.
RESPOND	ENTS'	EXHIBITS: NIL.

¶24

TRUE COPY

¶25

P.A. TO JUDGE.

¶26

A.M.SHAFFIQUE & P.SOMARAJAN, JJ

¶27

- - - - O.P.(WT). No. 12 of 2018

¶28

- - - - Dated this the 20^th day of March, 2018

JUDGMENT

SHAFFIQUE, J.

This original petition has been filed challenging Ext.P6 order by which an application filed by the petitioner to direct the defendants to issue receipt towards accepted subscription amount has been rejected.

¶33

Apparently, there is dispute between the petitioner and the office bearers of the respondent mosque, all of which started by the first respondent issuing Ext.P1 notice dated 12.6.2016. This came to be adjudicated before the Tribunal and the matter is pending adjudication. In the meantime, this Court had to interfere in the matter by issuing an order dated 22.11.2017, at the instance of the petitioner, by which direction had been issued to permit the petitioner to participate in the election and the returning officer was directed to declare the results. In the meantime, the petitioner paid the monthly subscription of Rs.420/-. It is submitted that the amount was accepted as donation as is revealed from Ext.P4 letter dated 11.12.2017 and Ext.P5

¶34

O.P.(WT). No. 12 of 2018 -2-

¶35

receipt. However, when the receipt was sent back it was treated as donation. The petitioner submits that this attempt of the Jama-ath was only to prevent him from exercising his rights as a member of the mosque.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

¶37

As matter stands now, the lis is pending before the

¶38

Tribunal. When this Court had permitted the petitioner to exercise his rights to act as a member, it was not appropriate for the respondents to have received the subscription amount as donation. It is only appropriate that necessary directions be issued in the matter. It is true that the receipt of the subscription amount is not the subject matter before the Tribunal. But when such issues arises when a large issue is pending adjudication, necessarily by exercising the inherent jurisdiction, this Court can pass appropriate orders. In the result, we are of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the following directions are issued.

¶39

a. Ext.P6 impugned order is set aside.

¶40

b. The first respondent is directed to issue a fresh receipt

¶41

O.P.(WT). No. 12 of 2018

¶42

-3-

¶43

to the petitioner for an amount of Rs.420/- towards monthly subscription amount for the respective months and continue to receive such amounts as and when paid by the petitioner till disposal of the case pending before the Tribunal.

¶44

This original petition is disposed of.

¶45

SD/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶46

SD/-

¶47

P.SOMARAJAN, JUDGE

¶48

P.M.Basheer v. Kanajirappally Nainarpally Central Jama-Ath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.M.Basheer v. Kanajirappally Nainarpally Central Jama-Ath

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

Krishnan S/O. Alakan, C.NO.846, Central Prison, Viyyur Vs State of Kerala

Chandra Lal, C.NO.4432, Central Prison, Poojappura.P.O., Trivandrum. Vs State of Kerala, Represented by D.G.P., High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam.

Hajira Vs Anto

Nafeesath Sana Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Sunil Kumar @ Sailan Vs State of Kerala

Sreekumar @ Kuttan Vs State of Kerala