Allowed

Dr.N.M.Abdul Majeed v. N.C.Abdul Azeez

Kerala HC21 Nov 2019WP(C)/29391/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the Kerala State Wakf Board's order regarding the election of a mutawalli for Karasseri Juma Ath Palli, holding that it violated specific directions contained in a prior judgment of this Court appointing an interim mutawalli. The petition was allowed to the extent of quashing the Board's contrary order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 1.10.2019 passed by the 3rd respondent quashed; parties directed to abide by previous judgment and complete election within two months.

Dr.N.M.Abdul Majeed Vs N.C.Abdul Azeez — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019/30TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶6

WP(C).No.29391 OF 2019(Y)

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

DR.N.M.ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 66 YEARS SON OF N.M.MUHAMMED HAJI, MELEPPATT HOUSE, MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT KUM.ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 N.C.ABDUL AZEEZ, SON OF N.C.KOYAKUTTY HAJI, N.C.HOUSE, THIRUVANOOR NADA.P.O., KOZHIKODE-673029.

¶11

2 U.N.ABDUL SALAM, S/O.KUNHOYI HAJI, UPPUKANDATHIL HOUSE, KARASSERI.P.O., MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673602.

¶12

3 KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, V.I.P. ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682017, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL R1 BY ADV. SHRI.ASWIN KUMAR M J R1 BY ADV. SMT.HELEN P.A. R1 BY ADV. SRI.SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI R2 BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. R2 BY ADV. SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.AJIT G.ANJARLEKAR

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

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

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. &

¶18

AMIT RAWAL, J.

¶19

-----------------------------------------------------

¶20

W.P.(C) No. 29391 OF 2019

¶21

------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21^st day of November, 2019

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Abdul Rehim, J.

¶24

Challenge raised in this writ petition is against Ext.P1 order passed by the 3^rd respondent, the Kerala State Wakf Board, in E.P. No.1108/CR. The petitioner herein is the 2^nd respondent before the Wakf Board in the order impugned herein. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are the petitioner and the 1^st respondent respectively, before the Wakf Board.

¶25

Issue pertains to the election of 'mutawalli' of 'Karasseri Juma Ath Palli'. The petitioner points out that, a Division Bench of this court, through Ext.P2 judgment had appointed the 1^st respondent herein as 'interim mutawalli' of the Wakf concerned and he was directed to conduct the election in

¶26

W.P.(C) No.29391/2019 -:3:-

¶27

accordance with the terms of the 'wakf deed' and to select a committee consisting of not less than 11 members, by ensuring that the senior most male member of the family, as per clause 6 of the wakf deed, shall be included in the committee, who shall function as the mutawalli by abiding with majority decisions of the Committee in the matters relating to the administration of the Wakf. In the impugned order passed by the Wakf Board, the above said judgment passed by this court in CRP(Wakf) No.212/2018 and connected cases, was taken note of. But, despite the directions contained in the said judgment, the Wakf Board directed the Returning Officer appointed by the said Board to proceed with conduct of the election and to complete the election process within two months, and to file a report. Such a direction, according to the petitioner, would clearly violate the mandate issued by this court in Ext.P2 judgment. Hence the same was sought to be quashed.

¶28

Advocate P.A. Mohammed Shah, who entered appearance on behalf of the 1^st respondent had pointed out that, Advocate P.C. Najeeb was appointed as Commissioner to

¶29

W.P.(C) No.29391/2019

¶30

-:4:-

¶31

conduct the election of the Wakf, through an order passed by the Wakf Board on 26.06.2018. It is pointed out that the petitioner herein had challenged the said order in a writ petition filed before this court, as W.P.(C) No.21879/2018. It is pointed out that, the said writ petition was dismissed through Ext.P2 common judgment. Therefore it is contended that the order passed by the Wakf Board on 26.06.2018 continues to be in force even as on the date when Ext.P1 order was passed by the Wakf Board.

¶32

Even if the argument raised by the counsel for the 1^st respondent is accepted as technically correct, fact remains that there exists in force a specific direction issued by this court to the 1^st respondent to continue as the interim mutawalli and to conduct the elections in the manner stipulated therein. Such a direction, even if it is inconsistent with the earlier decision of the Wakf Board, will definitely override the decision of the Wakf Board. It cannot be disputed that the directions contained in Ext.P2 judgment with respect to conduct of the elections of the

¶33

Wakf concerned, is binding on the Wakf Board. Therefore

¶34

W.P.(C) No.29391/2019

¶35

-:5:-

¶36

Ext.P1 order passed by the Wakf Board, even after noticing the directions contained in Ext.P2 judgment, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the above writ petition is hereby allowed to the extent of quashing Ext.P1 order passed by the Wakf Board. All the parties shall abide by the directions contained in Ext.P2 judgment, with respect to continuation of the interim mutawalli and also with respect to the conduct of the elections, in the manner stipulated therein.

¶37

All the parties in this writ petition had submitted across the Bar that, it is expedient in the interest of justice to stipulate an outer limit for the conduct of the elections, as directed in Ext.P2. Therefore, based on the concession made by all the parties, it is directed that the conduct of election as

¶38

directed in Ext.P2 judgment shall be completed at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from today.

¶39

Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE

¶40

ul/-

¶41

Sd/- AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE. // True copy // P.S. to Judge.

¶42

-:6:-

¶43

W.P.(C) No.29391/2019

¶44

APPENDIX

¶45

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶46

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ORDER DATED 1.10.2019 IN E.P.NO.1108/CR OF KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.8.2019 IN CRP (WAKF)212/2018 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

Dr.N.M.Abdul Majeed v. N.C.Abdul Azeez

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.N.M.Abdul Majeed v. N.C.Abdul Azeez

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

M/S. Taj Kerala Hotels & Resorts Limited. Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Lt)

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S.Keezhadath Traders

The Principal Commissioner Income Tax Vs M/S Keezhedath Traders

Pittappillil Agencies Vs Superintendent of Central Tax and Central Excisse

Pittappillil Agencies Vs Superintendent of Central Tax and Central Excise

A Basheer Vs Kerala State Wakf Board