Disposed

Attuvayi Muslim Jama-Ath v. M.Chellamuthu

Kerala HC14 Jun 2019CRP(WAKF)/260/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Civil Revision Petition challenging a Wakf Tribunal order that declared a Mahal election as null and void, the High Court noted the invalidity of bye-law amendments made during the suit. The Court modified the Tribunal's order by appointing a new Returning Officer to conduct a fresh election based on the bye-laws existing prior to the contested election.

What did the court decide?

Appointed Adv. A.K. Balasubranyan as Returning Officer; ordered a fresh election within 3 months based on bye-laws existing on 29.05.2014.

Attuvayi Muslim Jama-Ath Vs M.Chellamuthu — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶7

CRP(WAKF).No.260 of 2017

¶8

WOS 14/2014 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶9

PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 3 ADN 5 TO 23:

¶10

1 ATTUVAYI MUSLIM JAMA-ATH REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT K. ABDUL RAHIMAN,ATTUVAI HANAFI MUSLIM JAMA-ATH, CHATHAMANGALAM,P.O., NENMARA PALAKKAD DIST, - PIN - 678 508.

¶11

2 K. ABDUL RAHIMAN

¶12

AGED 61, S/O. KHADER RAWTHER, PRESIDENT, ATTUVAI HANAFI MUSLIM JAMA-ATH, CHATHAMANGALAM,P.O NENMARA,PALAKKAD DIST.

¶13

3 M. SHAMSUDHEEN S/O.MOIDEEN, SECRETARY,ATTUVAI HANAFI MUSLIM JAMAATH, CHATHAMANGALAM,P.O., NENMARA,PALAKKAD DIST.

¶14

4 SHAHUL HAMEED

¶15

S/O. SAIDU MUHAMMED, AGED 58, ERAPPACKALPARAMBU,CHATHAMANGALAM,P.O NENMARA,PALAKKAD DIST.

¶16

5 ISMAIL, S/O. MEERANKUTTY, AGED 61 ERAPPACKALPARAMBU,CHATHAMANGALAM,P.O NENMARA,PALAKKAD DIST.

¶17

6 YOUSUF M

¶18

S/O. SULAIMAN, AGED 47, THEVARMANI, CHATHAMANGALAM,P.O., NENMARA,PALAKKAD DIST.

¶19

7 ABDUL RAHIMAN

¶20

S/O. SULAIMAN, AGED 58, THEVARMANI, CHATHAMANGALAM,P.O., NENMARA,PALAKKAD DIST.

¶21

8 IBRAHIM S/O. ATHAR RAWTHER, AGED 45, CHEMMANTHODU,POTHUNDY

¶22

CRP(WAKF).No.260 of 2017

¶23

¶24

9 ABDUL RAHIMAN V S/O. MEERAN SAHIB, AGED 59, AYYAPPANPARA POTHUNDY.

¶25

10	HANEEFA Y
	S/O. YOUSUF	RAWTHER,AGED 54, ORAVUMADA, POTHUNDY.

¶26

11 MAJEED M S/O. MUHAMMED KANI, AGED 53, CHATTIYODU, POTHUNDY.

¶27

12 MUHAMMED KANI, AGED 49 YEARS S/O. MEERAN SAHIB, ERAPPAKKAL PARAMBU,CHATHAMANGALAM.

¶28

13 ABDUL JABBAR, S/O. KAMMU, AGED 47 PEZHUMPARA CHATHAMANGALAM.

¶29

14 P.K.KHALID S/O. KUNJUMUHAMMED,AGED 60, ATTUVAI,CHATHAMANGALAM.

¶30

15 MOIDEEN S/O. ABDUL KHADER, AGED 50, CHATTIYODU, POTHUNDY.

¶31

16 NIZARUDHEEN S/O. NOORUMUHAMMED, AGED 28, THIRUTHAMBADAM POTHUNDY.

¶32

17 ASEEZ MASTER S/O. SAITHAPPA, AGED 60, PUTHENTHOTTAM,CHATHAMANGALAM.

¶33

18 SUBAIR.S/O. SAITHUMUHAMMED, AGED 40, AKAMPADAM,POTHUNDY.

¶34

19 HANEEFA C.M S/O. MOIDEEN RAWTHER, AGED 58, CHULLICHALA,CHATHAMANGALAM.

¶35

20 SHAHUL HAMEED,S/O. MUTHU RAWTHER,AGED 60, PUTHENTHOTTAM, CHATHAMANGALAM.

¶36

21 MUSTHAFA PUNANJI, S/O. USSANAR AGED 63,PEZHUMPARA, CHATHAMANGALAM.

¶37

22 SAIDMUHAMMED S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 65 NELLIKKAD, POTHUNDY P.O

¶38

BY ADVS. SHRI.ESM.KABEER SMT.K.M.AMINABEEVI

¶39

CRP(WAKF).No.260 of 2017

¶40

¶41

RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANTS 4 AND 24:

¶42

1 M.CHELLAMUTHU

¶43

AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. MOIDEEN RAWTHER, NEAR U.P SCHOOL,CHATHAMANGALAM P.O., NENMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, ADHOC COMMITTEE MEMBER, ATTUVAI MUSLIM JAMA-ATH, PIN - 678508

¶44

2 ABDUL RAHMAN M S/O. MOIDEEN RAWTHER, AGED 55, PEZHUMPARA,CHATHAMANGALAM, NENMARA PALAKKAD DIST -678508.

¶45

3 SHRI.A.K. MUHAMMED RAFI RETURNING OFFICER, ADVOCATE, SHABNAM VANOOR ROAD,ALATHUR P.O PALAKKAD - 678 541.

¶46

4 THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD REPTD. BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER VIP ROAD,KALOOR-682016.

¶47

ADDL.R5 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NENMARA

¶48

ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 16.08.2017 IN I.A.NO.2139/2017

¶49

BY ADVS. SRI.K.M..FIROZ (CAVEATOR) T.P.SAJID(B/O) SRI.K.M..FIROZ CAVEATOR SRI.R.RAMADAS T.P.SAJIDBO G.P SRI.K.M.HASHIR

¶50

THIS CRP (WAKF ACT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶51

CRP(WAKF).No.260 of 2017

JUDGMENT

A.M.Shaffique, J.

The defendants 1 to 3 and 5 to 23 challenges the order passed in W.O.S.No.14/2014 of the Wakf Tribunal, Ernakulam. By the impugned order the Tribunal had issued the following directions:

¶56

“(a) I hereby direct the defendants 2 and 3 for convening the Adhoc committee and to produce the entire statement of accounts of the Waqf from 24/7/2011 till date before the general body.

¶57

(b) I hereby issue prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants 2 and 3 and their agents from conducting general body of the Mahal members and not to hand over charge of the Executive Committee to the newly elected 21 committee members, i.e, defendants 5 to 25.

¶58

(c)I hereby declare that the election of 21 members executive committee of Attuvai Hanafi Muslim Jama-ath conducted by the Returning Officer on 29/5/2014 is null and void.

¶59

(d) I hereby declare that the election of 21 committee members by the 4^th respondent on 29/5/2014 is not binding upon the members of the Attuvai Jama-ath Palli

¶60

(e) Advocate Sri.Shyam Aravind is appointed as Returning Officer for conducting election of Attuvai Hanafi Muslim Jamaath pay batta Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) to the Advocate Commissioner.”

¶61

The suit has been filed by two members of Attuvai Hanafi

¶62

Mulslim Jama-Ath, inter alia , challenging the election held on 29.05.2014

¶63

for managing the affairs of WAKF properties. It is, inter alia contended

¶64

that the election was not held in accordance with the procedure

¶65

prescribed. As per the bye-law, the election has to be held after preparation of a panel of 21 committee members and the said procedure

¶66

CRP(WAKF).No.260 of 2017 5

¶67

had not been followed. That apart, plaintiffs also alleged mismanagement, and sought for the accounts to be produced and verified. Consequent injunction has also been sought for restraining the office bearers who were elected on 29.05.2014 to manage the affairs of WAKF properties.

¶68

There is no dispute about the fact that the WAKF consists of Mahal and three Madrassas. Though there was contention that four Madrassas came within the WAKF properties, in a suit decided by the WAKF Tribunal, as W.O.S.No.2 of 2012, it was decided that only three Madrassas came within the WAKF, and the 4^th Madrassa was not WAKF property. Finding in the said suit has become final. Hence, there cannot be any dispute regarding the fact that only three Madrassas are WAKF properties, and the management of the committee shall be confined to the said three Madrassas.

¶69

The election came to be held based on a direction by the WAKF Board appointing a Returning Officer. It is apparent that the election was held without reference to any of the bye-law of the WAKF and therefore the WAKF Tribunal was justified in arriving at a finding that the procedure for the conduct of election had not been properly followed. The plaintiff had produced Annexure-A1 which was the bye-law of the WAKF. The petitioners herein have a case that during their tenure,

¶70

CRP(WAKF).No.260 of 2017 6

¶71

while the suit was pending the bye-law was amended and a new bye-law had come into existence, which was approved by the General Body and it has been registered during the year 2017.

¶72

But it is relevant to note that when a suit was filed challenging the right of the members of the committee to manage the affairs of the WAKF properties, it was not appropriate for the said management to have amended or made a new bye-law for the WAKF without getting permission from the Court. Though a request for injunction was dismissed still considering the nature of the dispute involved in the matter, it would have been proper for the committee to have obtained the permission of the Court for amending the bye-law or even preparing a new bye-law.

¶73

That apart, when the Court below, had come to an opinion, that the election was not conducted properly. In which event, necessarily a fresh election has to be conducted and the election should be conducted based on the bye-law which was in existence prior to the election, that is 29.05.2014. The parties are not in dispute regarding any of the other aspects involved in the matter. Their only contention was regarding the bye-law to be made applicable for the conduct of election. Since we have already held that the bye-law which was in existence on 29.05.2014 has to

¶74

CRP(WAKF).No.260 of 2017

¶75

¶76

be taken into consideration for the purpose of conducting the election, this Civil Revision Petition can be disposed of with the following directions in modification of the order already passed by the WAKF Tribunal.

¶77

Adv.Sri.A.K.Balasubranyan, Alathur Court (K/1385/95) is appointed as the Returning Officer for conduct of election of Attuvai Mulslim Jama-Ath consisting of three Madrassas. The entire process of election including declaration of result shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶78

All expenses regarding conduct of election shall be met from the income derived from the WAKF properties. The Returning Officer shall be paid an initial remuneration of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only).

¶79

It shall be open for the Returning Officer to file any report before this court, if it is found necessary.

¶80

Sd/-

¶81

A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE

¶82

Sd/N.ANIL KUMAR JUDGE

¶83

Attuvayi Muslim Jama-Ath v. M.Chellamuthu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Attuvayi Muslim Jama-Ath v. M.Chellamuthu

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

V.K.Sreenivasan Nair Vs Ushakumari K S

Ushakumari.K.S. Vs v.K.Sreenivasan Nair

Sunil Vs Rajani

Saramma Vs K.K.Abraham

Jaimon M.S. Vs Deepa D/O Mohanan

Sreelatha Vs Prabhakara Varma