Disposed

Muhammed Rafeeq T.K., v. Edolil Juma Ath Palli and Madrasathul Badriya

Kerala HC16 Nov 2018OP (WAKF)/38/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, invoking Article 227 jurisdiction, directed the Waqf Tribunal to dispose of a temporary injunction application within one month and deferred the respondents' scheduled general body meeting for the Mahal committee election.

What did the court decide?

Direct Waqf Tribunal to dispose of Ext.P2 within one month; defer election held under Ext.P9 until disposal of Ext.P2.

Muhammed Rafeeq T.K., Vs Edolil Juma Ath Palli and Madrasathul Badriya — Kerala HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN

¶6

FRIDAY ,THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶7

OP (WAKF).No. 38 of 2018

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A. NO.981/2018 IN IN OS 76/2018 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE

¶9

PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS:

¶10

1 MUHAMMED RAFEEQ T.K., AGED 50 YEARS, S/O UMMER K.P,'SABEENA'S ' KIDARAMKUNNU, KURICHIYIL P.O.,THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶11

2 MAHROOF,

¶12

S/O.MOIDU, AGED 60 YEARS, 'JASNAS', KURICHIYIL P.O., THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL

¶14

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶15

1 EDOLIL JUMA ATH PALLI AND MADRASATHUL BADRIYA, PARIPALANA COMMITTEE (AZHIKKAL), REG.NO.244/1997, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SALIH P.K.V, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O KUNHIMAMMU, HIDAYATH HOUSE, KURICHIYIL P.O., THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 102.

¶16

2 SALIH.P.K.V.,

¶17

AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIMAMMU, HIDAYATH HOUSE, EDOLIL JUMA-ATH PALLI AND MADRASATHUL BADRIYA PARIPALANA COMMITTEE(AZHIKKAL), KURICHIYIL P.O., THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 102.

¶18

3 K.P.YOUSEF, S/O.ABBOBACKER.K., AGED 70 YEARS, SABIRA MANZIL, PARIMADAM, KURICHIYIL P.O., THALASSERY, KANBNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 102.

¶19

OP (WAKF).No. 38 of 2018

¶20

-:2:-

¶21

4 RAMEES SKHAFI, S/O.ISMAIL, AGED 40 YEARS, 'POOMALAYAM', PARIMADAM, KURICHIYIL P.O., THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 102.

¶22

5 T.P.MUSTHAFA, S/O.MAMMOOTTY, RET.ENGINEER, AGED 70 YEARS, 'BEERIFASHIONBS, PARIMADAM, P.O.NEW MAHE, PIN-673 311.

¶23

6 PALLIKKANDY ALI, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 60 YEARS, 'ALISHAN', PARIMADAM, KURICHIYIL P.O., THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 102.

¶24

7 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, KALLOOR, COCHIN, ERNKAULAM, PIN-682 017.

¶25

THIS OP (WAKF) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

OP (WAKF).No. 38 of 2018

-:3:-

JUDGMENT

K.HARILAL,J.

The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.76 of 2018 on the files of the Waqf Tribunal, Kozhikode and the respondents are the defendants therein. The above suit was filed for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants 4 to 6 and their men from conducting any election to the Mahal committee. Along with the above suit, the petitioners have filed Ext.P2 application for a temporary injunction, the respondents entered appearance in the suit as well as Ext.P2 and sought for time to file objection to Ext.P2. Now, the aforesaid Original Suit stands posted to 24.11.2018. In the meantime, the respondents have proceeded to convene the general body meeting to elect Mahal committee by Ext.P9.

¶31

OP (WAKF).No. 38 of 2018

¶32

-:4:-

¶33

2. The grievance of the petitioners is

¶34

that, if the Mahal committee is elected under Ext.P9, the purpose, for which the aforesaid Original Suit has been filed, would become infructuous. On the above context, the petitioners approached this Court, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and sought for a direction to the Tribunal to consider and dispose of Ext.P2, within a time frame, and to stay all further proceedings under Ext.P9.

¶35

3. Heard the learned counsel for the

¶36

petitioners.

¶37

4. Having regard to the pendency of Ext.P2 and the consequences thereof, if election is conducted under Ext.P9, the Waqf Tribunal, Kozhikode, is hereby directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P2, at the earliest, at any

¶38

OP (WAKF).No. 38 of 2018

¶39

-:5:-

¶40

rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the general body scheduled to held on 18^th November, 2018 under Ext.P9 would stand deferred till the disposal of Ext.P2.

¶41

This original petition is disposed of accordingly. All pending Interlocutory

¶42

Applications will stand closed.

Sd/-

K.HARILAL

JUDGE

Sd/-

ANNIE JOHN

JUDGE

DST

OP (WAKF).No. 38 of 2018

¶51

-:6:-

¶52

APPENDIX

¶53

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶54

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.76/2018 OF THE WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE DATED 25.10.2018.
EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.981/2018 IN O.S.NO.76/2018 OF WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE DATED 25.10.2018.
EXHIBIT P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY EDOLIL JUMA MASJID AND MADRASATHUL BADRIYA PARIPALANA COMMITTEE TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY EDOLIL JUMA MASJID AND MADRASATHUL BADRIYA PARIPALANA COMMITTEE TO THE SECOND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR SUBSCRIPTION ISSUED BY EDOLIL JUMA MASJID AND MADRASATHUL BADRIYA PARIPALANA COMMITTEE TO 1ST PETITIONER DATED 18.08.2018.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR SUBSCRIPTION ISSUED BY EDOLIL JUMA MASJID AND MADRASATHUL BADRIYA PARIPALANA COMMITTEE TO 2ND PETITIONER DATED 18.08.2018.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE BY-LAW OF EDOLIL JUMA MASJID AND MADRASATHUL BADRIYA PARIPALANA COMMITTEE.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27.10.2018.
EXHIBIT P9	THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.11.2018.

¶55

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶56

//True copy// P.A. To Judge

Muhammed Rafeeq T.K., v. Edolil Juma Ath Palli and Madrasathul Badriya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Rafeeq T.K., v. Edolil Juma Ath Palli and Madrasathul Badriya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.P.Raju, Vs P.S.Gopalakrishnan Nair

Jabir, Vs Kerala State Wakf Board

Mohammed Haneef Vs Chief Executive Officer

V.v.Ibrahim, Vs the Judicial Committee

P.R.Danavan Vs Anilkumar

K.K.Raveendran Vs P.Sarada