Disposed

Mohammed Haneef v. Chief Executive Officer

Kerala HC15 Nov 2018WP(C)/37039/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the appointment of a Kazhi by waqf officials as a violation of the Kazis Act. The High Court directed the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board to dispose of the filed complaint within one month, keeping any appointments subject to the decision.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P4 complaint within one month. Stated appointments made, if any, are subject to the decision of the 1st respondent.

Mohammed Haneef Vs Chief Executive Officer — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2018)

¶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

THURSDAY ,THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶7

WP(C).No. 37039 of 2018

¶8

PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 MOHAMMED HANEEF,

¶10

AGED 45 YEARS,

¶11

S/O MOHMOOD, CHADIPADPU HOUSE, POSOAT, MANJESHWAR, KASARAGOD.

¶12

2 NAZEER, AGED 42 YEARS,

¶13

S/O.PODIYABBA, MUBARAK HOUSE, NEAR POSOAT JUMA MASJID, POSOAT, MANGESHWAR, KASARAGOD.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN

¶15

RESPONDENT/S:

¶16

1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD, VIP ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM- 682 017

¶17

2 DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD REGIONAL OFFICE, EROTH CENTRE, BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673001.

¶18

3 SAYYID ATTAVULLA THANGAL,

¶19

AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.BADARUDDIN KOYA THANGAL, NEAR 2ND RAILWAY GATE, BEACH ROAD, MANGESHWARAM, KASARAGOD, PIN-671323.

¶20

4 ABDULLA M.A., AGED 59 YEARS,

¶21

S/O.ABU HASSAN, NEAR POSOAT JUMA MASJID, POSOAT, MANGESHWARAM, KASARAGOD, PIN-671323, PRESIDENT, POSOAT MUHAYIDHIN JUMA MASJID COMMITTEE,

¶22

WP(C).No. 37039 of 2018

¶23

-:2:-

¶24

5 USMAN HAJI, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.DRIVER BADULLA, SADRUDUK HOUSE, BADAGE, MANGESHWARAM, KASARAGOD, PIN-671323, GENERAL SECRETARY, POSOAT MUHAYIDHIN JUMA MASJID COMMITTEE.

¶25

OTHER PRESENT:

¶26

SC SRI T.P. SAJID, SRI R. RAMDAS FOR R3 TO R5

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

WP(C).No. 37039 of 2018

-:3:-

JUDGMENT

K.HARILAL, J.

The petitioners are members and the 4^th and 5^th respondents are the President and General Secretary of Posoat Muhiyidheen Juma Masjid Committee, which is a body registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860, with Registration No.282/2005.

¶33

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have been taking hasty steps to appoint a Kazhi, in violaton of the provisions under Section 2 of the Kazis Act,

¶34

1880. Aggrieved by the said illegal and

¶35

WP(C).No. 37039 of 2018

¶36

-:4:-

¶37

arbitrary act of the respondents, the petitioners have preferred Ext.P4 complaint before the 1^st respondent. But, the 1^st respondent has not taken any action on Ext.P4 complaint. This is the grievance projected in this writ petition.

¶38

3. Having regard to the urgency of the matter and the consequences thereof, if the said dispute is settled amicably, at the earliest, the 1^st respondent is hereby directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P4, at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of

¶39

one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Appointments made, if any, will be subject to the decision of the 1^st respondent.

¶40

This Writ Petition is disposed of

¶41

WP(C).No. 37039 of 2018

¶42

-:5:-

¶43

accordingly. All pending Interlocutory

¶44

Applications will stand closed.

Sd/-

K.HARILAL

JUDGE

Sd/-

ANNIE JOHN

JUDGE

DST

WP(C).No. 37039 of 2018

¶53

-:6:-

¶54

APPENDIX

¶55

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶56

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BYE LAWS EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 8/11/2018 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 3/11/2018.

¶57

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶58

//True copy//

¶59

P.A. To Judge

Mohammed Haneef v. Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Haneef 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

Bindu Kuyyalil Vs C.M.Kumaran

Ismail Vs Muneera

Muhammed Sadiq Vs Chief Executive Officer

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

Jabir, Vs Kerala State Wakf Board

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