Disposed

M.Aboobcker, v. Pannyannoor Masali Hul Islam Sangam

Kerala HC14 Nov 2019WP(C)/24817/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that voter eligibility cannot be adjudicated in this writ petition, directing the Returning Officer to provide the written decision on objections within two weeks and reschedule the election after one week from that delivery.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Returning officer to deliver decision on objections within two weeks and publish new election schedule after one week.

M.Aboobcker, Vs Pannyannoor Masali Hul Islam Sangam — Election Law | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 23RD KARTHIKA, 1941

¶7

WP(C).No.24817 OF 2019(B)

¶8

PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 M.ABOOBCKER, S/O.ABDULLA, AGED 64 YEARS, RAHATH MANZIL, PANNYANNOOR P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

2 M.RAFEEQ, S/O.MOIDU, AGED 49 YEARS, THAZHE MANIKKOTH, PANNYANNOOR P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶11

3 MOHAMMED SHIBIN, S/O.SHAMSUDDIN, AGED 19 YEARS AACHEES VILLA, PANNYANNOOR P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶12

4 B.K.SHANAVAS, S/O.ISMAIL, AGED 39 YEARS VADAKKEDATH HOUSE, PANNYANNOOR P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH

¶14

SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL SMT.HELEN P.A. ARUN ROY

¶15

RESPONDENTS:

¶16

1 PANNYANNOOR MASALI HUL ISLAM SANGAM, REG.NO.379/93, PANNYANNOOR P.O., (VIA) CHOKLI, KANNUR- 670671, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, T.K.YOOSAF HAJI, S/O.MOIDU, ARAFAATH MANZIL, PANNYANNOOR P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN- 670671.

¶17

WP (c)No.24817/2019

¶18

-2-

¶19

2 MOHAMMED RIZWAN, S/O.SIDDIQUE, AGED 20 YEARS ALFAVI, PANNYANNOOR P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN- 670671.

¶20

3 M.B.ABDURAHMAN, S/O.KUNHI MAMMU HAJI, AGED 64 YEARS REHEMANIYA THAZHEPUNATHIL VEEDU, PANNYANNOOR P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN- 670671.

¶21

4 P.P.ALI, S/O.USMAN, AGED 64 YEARS, FEMI PALACE VEEDU, PANNYANNOOR P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN- 670671.

¶22

5 M.IRSHAD,

¶23

S/O.ISMAIL, AGED 31 YEARS MARHABA, MAVILOTH, PANNYANNOOR P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN- 670671.

¶24

6 YOOSEF ABDULLA, S/O.ABDULLA, AGED 59 YEARS FARHAS VEEDU, PANNYANNOOR P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN- 670671.

¶25

7 T.K.YOOSEF HAJI, S/O.MOIDU, AGED 72 YEARS ARAFAATH MANZIL, PANNYANNOOR P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN- 670671.

¶26

8 AHAMMED HAJI, S/O.USMAN, AGED 78 YEARS MANTHODE VEEDU, PANNYANNOOR P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT,

¶27

PRESIDENT, PANNYANNOOR MASALI HUL ISLAM SANGAM, PANNYANNOR P.O., (VIA) CHOKLI, KANNUR- 670671.

¶28

9 K.T.SHAMEER, S/O.MAHAMOOD, AGED 36 YEARS KANNAMTHOTTIL, PANNYANNOOR P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN- 670671.

¶29

10 V.P.SAHIR, S/O.UMMER KUTTY, AGED 38 YEARS NAJAS HOUSE, PANNYANNOOR P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN- 670671.

¶30

11 THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HEAD OFFICE, KALOOR, VIP ROAD, KOCHI-682017.

¶31

WP (c)No.24817/2019

¶32

-3-

¶33

12 RETURNING OFFICER, PANNYANNOOR MASALI HUL ISLAM SANGAM JUMA MASJID COMMITTEE, PANNYANNOR P.O., (VIA) CHOKLI, KANNUR- 670671. 13 K.P.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ, ASSISTANT RETURNING OFFICER, PANNYANNOOR MASALI HUL ISLAM SANGAM MASJID COMMITTEE, PANNYANNOR P.O., (VIA) CHOKLI, KANNUR- 670671. 14 M.ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O.YUSUF MASTER, AGED 62 YEARS NAFIYA MANZIL, PANNYANNOOR P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN- 670671. R1, R7 BY ADV. SRI.V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN R1, R7 BY ADV. SRI.V.RENJITH R2-6, R9-10, R14 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR R8 BY ADV. SRI.ABDUL JALEEL.A R8 BY ADV. SMT.M.A.SULFIA R12-13 BY ADV. SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI

¶34

OTHER PRESENT:

¶35

SC, WAQF BOARD- SRI. T.P.SAJID

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

WP (c)No.24817/2019

¶38

-4-

¶39

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. & AMIT RAWAL, J.

¶40

W.P (C) No. 24817 OF 2019

¶41

DATED THIS THE 14^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019

¶42

J U D G M E N T

¶43

Abdul Rehim, J.:

¶44

Short issue germane for consideration in this writ petition is regarding competence of 9^th and 14^th respondent to cast their votes in the election scheduled to the Managing Committee of the 1^st respondent Sangam. Evidently, by virtue of the judgment of the Wakf Tribunal in O.S. No.203/2019, the 12^th respondent was appointed as the Returning Officer to conduct the election to the Managing Committee (Working Committee) of the 1^st respondent Sangam, in accordance with the bylaws. One among the specific directions issued by the Wakf Tribunal to the 12^th respondent is that, the election is to be conducted based on list of the general body members submitted by the Wakf Board before the Tribunal, which was directed to be forwarded to the Returning Officer. However, the Returning Officer was directed to publish the said list of the members as the draft voters list and to notify calling objections if any, before publishing the final voters list. Case of the petitioners is that, the 12^th respondent had notified the Ext.A6 schedule for conduct of the election. The

¶45

WP (c)No.24817/2019

¶46

-5-

¶47

date notified for publication of draft voters list was 10-09-2019. The date notified for receipt of the objections to the draft voters list, if any, was on 13-09-2019. The date and time noted for hearing of the objections was at 5.30 p.m. on 13-09-2019. According to the petitioners, they have submitted objections against inclusion of the name of the respondents 9 and 14 in the voters list. But in the meanwhile, the Returning Officer had appointed the 13^th respondent as the Assistant Returning Officer, inorder to assist him in the conduct of the election. In the notice published as per Ext.P7 it was made known that, the 13^th respondent was appointed as the Assistant Returning Officer only for the specific purposes of receiving the nomination papers and to receive the applications seeking withdrawal of the nominations and for such allied matters. But it is alleged that, the 13^th respondent made an endeavour to hear the objections raised against the draft voters list, which the petitioners objected. Therefore the 12^th respondent had re-scheduled the elections as per Ext.P8 and re-notified the date of hearing of the objections at 5.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. on 16-09-2019. According to the petitioners, the 12^th respondent heard the petitioners with respect to the objections raised against inclusion of the names of the respondents 9 and 14 in the draft voters list. But, without

¶48

WP (c)No.24817/2019

¶49

-6-

¶50

issuing any orders in writing, the 12^th respondent openly declared that the objection is rejected. He is now proceeding to conduct the election as per the revised schedule published under Ext.P8. At that juncture, the petitioners are approaching this court in the above writ petition seeking relief to direct removal of the names of respondents 9 and 14 from the list of eligible voters. Through an interim order passed by this court on 19-092019, further steps for completion of the election process was stayed.

¶51

Learned counsel appearing for the 12^th respondent submitted that, decision was already taken on the objections raised by the petitioners against inclusion of the names of respondents 9 & 14 in the voters list. He conceded that the copy of such decision has not been communicated to the petitioners. We are of the opinion that the petitioners have got a right to get a copy of the decision taken by the 12^th respondent with respect to the objection raised regarding inclusion of the name of respondents 9 and 14 in the voters list. However, we are of the opinion that the eligibility of respondents 9 & 14 to cast votes in the elections proposed to the Managing Committee of the 1^st respondent Sangam, is not a matter which can be adjudicated in this writ petition. If the petitioners have got any grievance

¶52

WP (c)No.24817/2019

¶53

-7-

¶54

regarding rejection of their objection in this respect, they have to challenge such decision before appropriate statutory forum / authority, to the extent permissible under law.

¶55

Under the above mentioned circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that, interest of justice can be achieved by directing the 12^th respondent to deliver a copy of the decision taken with respect to the objections raised by the petitioners, within a period of two weeks from today. The petitioners will be at liberty to raise challenge against such decision before any appropriate forum, to the extent it is sustainable. In view of the direction as mentioned above, it is only appropriate that the further proceedings for conduct of the election need to be rescheduled. Accordingly we direct the 12^th respondent to publish a new schedule with respect to conduct of the election, after a period of one week from the date of delivery of the order as directed above and to proceed with further steps for conduct of the election in accordance with such schedule.

¶56

Sd/C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE

¶57

Sd/AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

AMG

WP (c)No.24817/2019

-8-

APPENDIX

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶63

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.109/2013 IN O	ORDER PASSED BY THE WAKF BOARD IN .P.155/2012 DATED 23.03.2015.
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF REQU 21.12.2018.	EST OF THE WAKF BOARD DATED
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 31.05.2019.	NOTICE ISSUED BY THE WAKF BOARD
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE O.S.203/2019 DATE	ORDER IN I.A.2056/2019 IN D 05.09.2019.
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY OF THE 05.09.2019.	JUDGMENT IN O.S.203/2019 DATED
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE COPY OF THE 10.09.2019.	ELECTION NOTIFICATION DATED
EXHIBIT	P7 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICER DATED 10.	ORDER ISSUED BY THE RETURNING 09.2019.
EXHIBIT	P8 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICER DATED 13.	NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RETURNING 09.2019.
EXHIBIT	P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT DATED	NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 9TH 03.09.2019.
EXHIBIT	P10 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT DATED	NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 14TH 03.09.2019.

M.Aboobcker, v. Pannyannoor Masali Hul Islam Sangam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Aboobcker, v. Pannyannoor Masali Hul Islam Sangam

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin Vs St.Thomas Cathedral Church,Irinjalakuda

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin Vs St.Thomas Cathedral Church,Irinjalakuda

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin Vs St.Thomas Cathedral Church,Irinjalakuda

K.M.Saidu Muhammed, Vs the Kerala State Wakf Board

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Keezhedath Traders

The Principal Commissioner Income Tax Vs M/S Keezhedath Traders