Allowed

Aboobacker Haji v. Chief Executive Officer

Kerala HC8 Jun 2018WP(C)/18951/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the arbitrary change of mosque prayer timings by the Mahal Committee. The Court held that the dispute fell within the supervisory jurisdiction of the Waqf Board under the Waqf Act. Directions were issued to resolve the internal conflict between rival groups after hearing both sides.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the Kerala State Waqf Board to resolve the dispute regarding the change of mosque prayer timings after hearing both rival groups.

Aboobacker Haji Vs Chief Executive… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶6

WP(C).No. 18951 of 2018

¶7

PETITIONERS

¶8

1 ABOOBACKER HAJI AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. ALIKUTTY HAJI, PARANNUR P.O., NARIKKUNI, KOZHIKODE.

¶9

2 V.P.MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. KUNHIKOYA HAJI, VILIPPAVIL HOUSE, PARANNUR P.O., NARIKUNNI P.O., KOZHIKODE.

¶10

BY ADV.SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶13

THE KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD VIP ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM-682 017.

¶14

DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD, EROTH CENTRE, KOZHIKODE.

¶15

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAKKUR.

¶16

K.P.MOHAMMED, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA, KOZHIPARAMBATH(H), NARIKUNNI, KOZHIKODE-673 585, PRESIDENT PULLALOOR PARAPPARA JUMA MASJID MAHALLU COMMITTEE.

¶17

V.P.MUHAMMED HAJI,

¶18

AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. KUNHIKOYA HAJI, KUZHIKULATHIL(H), PARANNOOR P.O., NARIKUNNI, KOZHIKODE-673 585, SECRETARY PULLALOOR PARAPPARA JUMA MASJID MAHALLU COMMITTEE.

¶19

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.P.SAJID

¶20

BY SRI.T.P.SAJID, SC, KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 0806-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C).No. 18951 of 2018 (T)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

EXHIBITS

¶25

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.05.2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30.05.2018. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 31.05.2018. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 05.05.2018. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE O.R.NO.06/2018 DATED 26.02.2018.

/True copy/

P.S.To Judge

JUDGMENT

Harilal, J

1.The petitioners are members of the Pullaloor Parappara Juma Masjid Mahallu committee. According to the petitioners, the aforesaid masjid was in existence from 1938 onwards and from then, the prayers for Id Ul Fitr is held at 8.30 am. The reason for the same being that there is a kabrasthan attached to the masjid and after the prayers, the believers visit the same seeking blessings of the ancestors. So the timing of the prayers which has been set by the predecessors cannot be changed in any manner and no one has the power or authority to alter the same. But the present mahal committee under respondents 4 and 5 published a notice in the notice board changing the time of the prayers to 8.00 am. When the petitioners and other members came to know the

¶31

WP(C).18951/18

¶32

¶33

same, they submitted a complaint to the committee expressing their displeasure against the alteration of the timings. When respondents 4 and 5 were fed up with their acts of changing of timings, Ext.P3 complaint was preferred before the 3^rd respondent apprehending failure of law and order situation. In furtherance of Ext.P3 complaint before the 3^rd respondent, both parties were called to the police station and they entered into an agreement and as per the said agreement timing will not be changed. But, contrary to the common consensus arrived at by both parties, respondents 4 and 5 have again changed the timings of prayers to 8.00 am and the aforesaid arbitrary act of respondents 4 and 5 again caused difference of opinion among the members of the mahal and the petitioners apprehend that the displeasure may grow to the failure of law and order situation also. Though, they have informed the 2^nd respondent, the 2^nd respondent has not interfered with the dispute arose in connection with the change of prayer time. The inaction on the part of the 2^nd

¶34

WP(C).18951/18

¶35

¶36

respondent is not justifiable in view of the vide powers vested with the 1^st respondent under Section 64 of the Waqf Act. In the above circumstances, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the 1^st respondent to resolve the dispute by taking appropriate steps.

¶37

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent.

¶38

3.According to the petitioners, the prayer time was changed arbitrarily without considering the opinion of the mahal members and the said act was against the customs and precedents. However, the scope and extent of interference by the 3^rd respondent would be limited to maintenance of law and order situation only. We are of the opinion that it is for the 1^st respondent to take steps to resolve the dispute among the members of the mahal invoking supervisory powers conferred to the Waqf Tribunal under Sections 62 to 65 of the Waqf Act.

¶39

WP(C).18951/18

¶40

¶41

4.In the above view, the 1^st respondent is directed to take necessary steps and resolve the dispute arose in the aforesaid mahal in connection with the change of prayer timing, at the earliest, after hearing both the rival groups.

Sd/-

K.HARILAL Judge

Sd/-

A.M.BABU

Judge

Mrcs/8.6.

/True copy/

P.S.To Judge

Aboobacker Haji v. Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aboobacker Haji v. Chief Executive Officer

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

T.M.Abdul Salam Vs Padamughal Mahallu Muslim Jamaath Committee

Biby K.John and Others Vs Mariamma Mathai @ Bindu

Muhammed Shaji Vs Remsina Mol

S.Sreekandan Nair Vs P.S.Leela

A.M.Bava Pilla Vs Myloor Jama-Ath Mosque

Muhammed Shaji Vs Remsina Mol & Another