Dismissed

Chunakkara South Muslim Jamaath v. Kerala State Waqf Board

Kerala HC12 Feb 2021OP (WAKF)/3/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a revision petition under Article 227 challenging a Waqf Board order that cancelled an election and appointed a fresh one. The Court held the petitioner lacked standing as their tenure as elected members had expired.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed as the petitioner has no standing to challenge the election order.

Chunakkara South Muslim Jamaath Vs Kerala… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 23RD MAGHA,1942

¶7

OP (WAKF).No.3 OF 2021

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 CHUNAKKARA SOUTH MUSLIM JAMAATH CHUNAKKARA SOUTH, CHUNAKKARA VILLAGE, CHARUMOODU P.O., PIN-690 505, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AJITH KHAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. HANEEFA RAWTHER, NAMBOZHIL HOUSE, CHARUMOODU P.O., PIN-690 505, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶10

2 AJITH KHAN AGED 42 YEARS SECRETARY, CHUNNAKARA SOUTH MUSLIM JAMA-ATH, S/O. HANEEFA RAWTHER, NAMBOZHIL HOUSE, CHARUMOODU P.O., PIN-690 505, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.VINOD SMT.M.S.LETHA KUM.K.S.SREEREKHA

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, EROTH CENTRE, BANK ROAD, KOZHIKKODE.

¶14

2 SHAJAHAN AGED 51 YEARS S/O. ALI RAWTHER, ARAFA HOUSE, CHUNKATHARA SOUTH, CHUNAKKRA AMSAM CHARUMOODU P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690 505.

¶15

O.P.(Waqf) No. 3/2021

¶16

-2-

¶17

3 SHAJAHAN E. AGED 54 YEARS S/O. IBRAHIM RAWTHER, KUMBAMPUZHA PADEETTATHIL, SHAJI BHAVANAM, KOMALLOOR P.O., CHUNAKKARA-690 505.

¶18

4 LATHEEF H. AGED 55 YEARS S/O. HAMEED K.T., SHABNA MANZIL, CHUNAKKARA SOUTH, CHARUMOOD P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690 505.

¶19

5 ABDHUL KHADER SHAJAHAN AGED 56 YEARS S/O. ABDHUL KHADER, MULLASSERY PADEETTATHIL HOUSE, EDAKUNNAM, CHARUMOODU P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN-690 5050.

¶20

OTHER PRESENT:

¶21

SC SHIRAZ BAVA FOR T.K. SAIDALIKUTTY

¶22

THIS OP (WAKF) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

O.P.(Waqf) No. 3/2021

¶24

-3-

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

Dated this the 12th day of February 2021

¶27

S.V. Bhatti, J.

¶28

1^st respondent through Ext.P5 dated 20.08.2019 held and

¶29

directed as follows:

¶30

“Under these circumstances, the Board is of the opinion that no proper election was conducted as mentioned by the bye-law by the respondent jama-ath committee. Therefore, it is decided to conduct a fresh election through a Returning Officer appointed by the Board within a period of one month. Therefore, Sri.E.M.Abdul Khadir, Advocate, Roll No.K-37/1991, Kuttoth Complex, Pukkattupadi Road, Toll Junction, Edappally, Kochi – 682 024 is appointed as Returning Officer. Initial batta of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to the Returning Officer by the petitioner herein. The respondents shall handover all necessary documents and registers to the Returning Officer as and when requisitioned by him. With the above direction the Original Petition is posed to 09.10.2019 for report of the Election Commission.”

¶31

O.P.(Waqf) No. 3/2021

¶32

-4-

¶33

The petitioners challenged the order dated 20.08.2019 unsuccessfully before the Waqf Tribunal, Kozhikode. The Waqf Tribunal, through the order under revision, rejected the case of petitioners and also issued a few directions for conducting the election to Chunakkara Thekku Muslim Jamaath Committee. Challenging the said order, the present revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶34

One of the grounds forcefully argued by Adv.K.R. Vinod is that the orders suffer from violation of principles of natural justice and the petitioners in this Court were not heard before ordering conduct of election. Presumably, the premise for such contention rests on the fact that the petitioners were the elected members of Committee, elected by the General Body. To the pointed query of the Court on the period for which the Committee was elected, it is stated that the period for which the petitioners were elected was over.

¶35

O.P.(Waqf) No. 3/2021

¶36

-5-

¶37

We are of the view that the concluding portion of Ext.P6 order envisages that the Board and the Returning Officer shall do the needful for conduct of the elections. We are not convinced, particularly having regard to the fact that the petitioner does not have a right as on date vis-a-vis the Chunakkara Thekku Muslim Jama-ath Committee, to entertain the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶38

Petition fails and dismissed accordingly.

Sd/-

S.V.BHATTI

JUDGE

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶44

jjj

¶45

O.P.(Waqf) No. 3/2021

¶46

-6-

¶47

APPENDIX

¶48

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶49

EXHIBIT P1 THE GENERAL BODY NOTICE OF IST PETITIONER PROPOSED TO BE CONDUCTED ON 31.7.2019 AT 9.30 A.M. EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL BODY DATED 31.7.2019. EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF THE OP NO.118/2019 FILED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 7. EXHIBIT P4 THE COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FILED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P3 PETITION. EXHIBIT P5 THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 20.8.2019. EXHIBIT P6 THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE WAQF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE IN W.O.A.NO.186/2019 DATED 11.12.2020.

Chunakkara South Muslim Jamaath v. Kerala State Waqf Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chunakkara South Muslim Jamaath v. Kerala State Waqf Board

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

K.G.L Bhat and Sons Vs State of Kerala

T.Abdul Samad Vs Kerala State Waqf Board

M/S Creotech Engineers Vs the State Tax Officer

M/S. National Electronics Taliparamba Vs State of Kerala

Muneerul Anam Sangham Akkode (South) Vs the Kerala State Wakf Board

Anil Kumar Gopinathan Vs the Commissiioner of Income Tax