Dismissed

Saidalavi Koya Thangal, v. the Kerala State Wakf Board

Kerala HC14 Dec 2022WP(C)/38862/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the final voters' list for an election management body. Holding that once a Returning Officer is appointed, the Court cannot interfere in election matters or direct redoing of the list, leaving such decisions to the Returning Officer's discretion.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no orders for grievance regarding the voters' list.

Saidalavi Koya Thangal, Vs the Kerala State Wakf Board — Election Law | Kerala HC (2022)

¶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 BASANT BALAJI

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 14th DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶7

W.P.(C) NO.38862 OF 2022

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

SAIDALAVI KOYA THANGAL, AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O.LATE AMEER KOYA THANGAL, PARAKADAVATH HOUSE, CHEDAKUTH
PALLIKKAL, MALAPPURAM, PIN–673 634
BY ADVS.
P.MARTIN JOSE
P.PRIJITH
THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
R.GITHESH
MANJUNATH MENON
AJAY BEN JOSE
SACHIN JACOB AMBAT
ANNA LINDA V.J
HARIKRISHNAN S.
S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD,
REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
VIP ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI, PIN – 682 017
2PALLIKKAL BAZAR JUMA ATH PALLI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS INTERIM MUTHAVALLI,
M V. ALAVIKUTTY, PALLIKKAL P. O., MALAPPURAM, PIN – 673 634
3M V. ALAVIKUTTY, INTERIM MUTHAVALLI,
PALLIKKAL BAZAR JUMA ATH PALLI MAHAL COMMITTEE,
PALLIKKAL P. O., MALAPPURAM, PIN – 673 634
4K. LIYAKKATH ALI, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.LATE HYDER,
KALATHINGAL HOUSE, CHEDAKUTH, PALLIKKAL P.O.,
MALAPPURAM,PIN – 673 634
5ADVOCATE ABOOBACKER SIDHIK, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031,
ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER APPOINTED AS PER
JUDGMENT DATED 04.07.2022 IN OP(WAKF) NO.11/2022,
6ADVOCATE SHIRAZ BAVA V.S., ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031
ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER APPOINTED AS PER
JUDGEMENT DATED 04.07.2022 IN OP(WAKF) NO.11/2022,
 BY ADV JAMSHEED HAFIZ

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.12.2022, THE COURT ON 14.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

W.P.(C) No.38862/2022

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(Dated: 14^th December, 2022)

¶17

Basant Balaji, J.

¶18

The writ petition is filed by a member of the 2^nd

¶19

respondent -Jama-ath, for the following reliefs:

¶20

i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other writ, order or direction, compelling respondents 3, 5 and 6 to consider the objection against inclusion of voters who were enrolled as members by 4^th respondent since 10.04.2022 detailed in Ext.P9 and prepare a fresh voters list by excluding those members enrolled on and after 10.04.2022 by the 4^th respondent, ii) To keep the further proceedings of election till a final voters list is prepared, and

¶21

iii) Dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular documents produced along with the above writ petition.

¶22

The 3^rd respondent is the interim muthawalli

¶23

appointed by the Wakf Board. The Wakf Board by order dated

¶24

07.04.2022 in I.A.No.19 of 2021 in O.P.No.33 of 2018 appointed

¶25

the 3^rd respondent as the interim muthawalli. The appointment

¶26

of the 3^rd respondent was challenged before this court in O.P.

¶27

W.P.(C) No.38862/2022

¶28

¶29

(Wakf) No.11 of 2022. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 04.07.2022 in O.P.(Wakf)No.11 of 2022, confirmed the appointment and clarified that he could continue as interim muthawalli to do the daily administration of the mahal committee. Two Advocate Commissioners were also appointed to prepare the voters’ list for the election. Another order was passed by this Court in O.P.(Wakf) No.11 of 2022 on 02.09.2022, on the basis of the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioners regarding the inclusion of members in the voters’ list. The petitioner contended that the present voters’ list prepared includes members who are ineligible to cast

¶30

vote and therefore the entire voters’ list has to be redone on the basis of the representation submitted by the 3^rd respondent

¶31

before the 4^th respondent.

¶32

One Abdul Kareem has filed W.P.(C)No.33349 of

¶33

2022 against the improper inclusion of the persons in the draft

¶34

W.P.(C) No.38862/2022

¶35

¶36

voters’ list. This Court by judgment dated 20.10.2022 dismissed the writ petition, holding that, when interim muthawalli along with Advocate Commissioners are appointed by this court to prepare a voters’ list, taking into consideration the directions issued in the earlier judgment, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable and this court cannot interfere in each stage of election and give directions. The grievance highlighted in this writ petition is in the same line. His contention is that, the voters’ list prepared by the interim muthawalli along with Advocate Commissioners is by including ineligible voters, so the present/final voters’ list has to be redone.

¶37

Once a Returning Officer is appointed and the election process has already started, this Court cannot interfere in such matters, and it is left to the discretion of the Returning Officers. If at all, the petitioners have any grievance, their remedy lies

¶38

W.P.(C) No.38862/2022

¶39

¶40

elsewhere. This Court cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in election

¶41

matters. Therefore, there arise no grounds to interfere with the final voters’ list published on 12.11.2022 and therefore the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.

S.V.BHATTI, JUDGE

BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE

W.P.(C) No.38862/2022

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38862/2022

¶48

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22-06-2022 OF THE
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
MALAPPURAM, DIRECTING THE 4TH RESPONDENT
TO HANDOVER THE RECORDS AND AMOUNTS
COLLECTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT DATED 4-07-2022 IN
O.P.(WAKF) NO.11 OF 2022 OF THIS HON'BLE
HIGH COURT
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 31-08-2022 FILED
BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONERS IN
O.P.(WAKF) NO.11 OF 2022 BEFORE THIS
HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 2-09-2022 IN
O.P.(WAKF) NO.11 OF 2022 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 05-09-2022 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, INITIATING
PROSECUTION AGAINST THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND
OTHERS UNDER SECTION 61 OF THE WAKF ACT
Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 25-09-2022
ISSUED BY RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 IN PURSUANCE
OF EXHIBIT P-4 AND ANNOUNCED THE PROCESS
OF FINALISING THE VOTERS LIST
Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20-10-2022 IN
W P (C) NO.33349 OF 2022 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT
Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY ABDUL
KARIM DATED 22-10-2022 BEFORE THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONERS
Exhibit P9TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 5-11-
2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6
Exhibit P10TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 05-11-2022
SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE
RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6
Exhibit P11TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 17-11-
2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITHOUT
DOCUMENTS.

Saidalavi Koya Thangal, v. the Kerala State Wakf Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saidalavi Koya Thangal, v. the Kerala State Wakf Board

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

Jojo Francis Vs State of Kerala

The State of Kerala Vs Steel Emporium

State of Kerala Vs M/S Agreenco Fibre Foam (P) Ltd.

M/S. Kunnel Engineers and Contractors (P) Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S.Kunnel Engineers and Contractors (P) Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

The Meenachil Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Vs the Income Tax Officer