Dismissed

Venduvazhi Mahal Muslim Jama-Ath Committ v. v.a.Pareeth

Kerala HC27 Jun 2024CRP/52/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench dismissed a civil revision petition filed by the Venduvazhi Mahal Muslim Jama-ath Committee against a Waqf Tribunal order declaring an expulsion illegal. The petitioners voluntarily withdrew prosecution, resulting in dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed on the submission of the petitioners that they do not wish to prosecute the matter further.

Venduvazhi Mahal Muslim Jama-Ath Committ Vs v.a.Pareeth — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶7

CRP NO. 52 OF 2008

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.11.2007 IN WOS NO.24 OF 2006
OF WAKF TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶9

------

¶10

REVISION PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS:

¶11

1 VENDUVAZHI MAHAL MUSLIM JAMA-ATH COMMITTEE, VENDUVAZHI, KARUKADAM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT K.S.EBRAHIM.

¶12

2 K.S.EBRAHIM, S/O.SYED, AGED ABOUT 55 YEAR PRESIDENT, VENDUVAZHI MAHAL MUSLIM JAMA-ATH, COMMITTEE, VENDUVAZHI, KARUKADAM P.O.,, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶13

3 K.M.MEERAKKUTY, S/O.MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, SECRETARY, VENDUVAZHI, KARUKADAM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK., ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶14

BY ADVS.

¶15

SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED
SRI. C.N.IBRAHIM

¶16

RESPONDENTS:

¶17

1 V.A.PAREETH, S/O.ABDURAHIMAN, AGED 53 YEARS, VARAPPLILLIKUDI VENDUVAZHI KARA, KOTHAMANGALM VILLAGE & TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶18

2 THE KERALA WAKF BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE,

¶19

¶20

CRP No.52 of 2008

¶21

KERALA WAKF BOARD, PARAMARA BOARD, ERNAKULAM.

¶22

BY ADVS.
SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ
SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN, SC, WAKF BOARD
SRI.M.M.MUHAMMAD ASHARAF

¶23

SRI.HAMSHEED HAFIZ, SC, WAQF BOARD

¶24

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
27.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CRP No.52 of 2008

ORDER

Anil. K. Narendran, J .

¶29

Venduvazhi Mahal Muslim Jama-ath and its office bearers have filed this Civil Revision Petition, invoking the provisions under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, challenging the judgment dated 01.11.2007 of the Waqf Tribunal, Ernakulam in WOS No.24 of 2006, which was one filed by the 1^st respondent herein, invoking the provisions under Section 83 of the Act, seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants, namely, the petitioners 1 to 3 herein and the Kerala State Waqf Board from implementing the decision dated 09.07.2006 taken by the defendants, expelling the plaintiff from the primary membership of Venduvazhi Mahal Muslim Jama-ath and from in any way treating him as a person expelled from the Venduvazhi Mahal Muslim Jama-ath. By the impugned judgment dated 01.11.2007, the suit was decreed without costs. The operative portion of that

¶30

judgment reads thus;

¶31

“In the result, the suit is decreed without costs. It is hereby declared that:

¶32

a. Defendants 1 to 3 have no power to expel plaintiff from the Venduvazhi Mahal Muslim Jama-ath, as per its constitution and letter dated 09.07.2006 issued by defendants 1 to 3 expelling plaintiff from the primary membership of Venduvazhi Mahal Muslim Jama-ath is

¶33

¶34

CRP No.52 of 2008

¶35

null and void and beyond their powers.

¶36

b. Defendants 1 to 3 are permanently restrained from implementing decisions in the letter dated 09.07.2006 expelling the plaintiff from the primary membership of Venduvazhi Mahal Muslim Jama-ath and treating him as a person expelled from Venduvazhi Mahal Muslim Jamaath.”

¶37

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.11.2007 of the Waqf Tribunal in WOS No.24 of 2006, the petitioners have filed this Civil Revision Petition, which was admitted on file and notice was issued to respondents on 18.01.2008.

¶38

Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent-plaintiff would point out the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Kassim P.V. v. Kakkattiri Juma Masjid Mahallu Committee and others

¶39

[2022 (1) KHC 330] , wherein it was held that ‘ooruvilakku’, externment and excommunication either express/declared or implied/undeclared are illegal. Paragraph 11 of that decision reads thus;

¶40

“11. However, a close reading of the order of the Tribunal, with reference to paragraph 10, it could be easily gathered that the revision petitioner belongs to Jama-ath Islami faction of Muslim community and the Mosque has been managed by Sunni faction of the Muslim community having different ideologies. In this scenario, difference of opinion

¶41

¶42

CRP No.52 of 2008

¶43

mainly in the matter of implementation of ideologies, is embedded in this matter. This obviously would suggest that though no records available to substantiate 'ooruvilakku' alleged to be imposed against the revision petitioner in express or declared terms, some sanctions on the revision petitioner is moulded in this case otherwise. We are inclined to refer the same as ‘implied’ or 'undeclared' ooruvilakku. In this context, we are prepared to accept the pleadings placed on record by the respondents. However, we hold that 'ooruvilakku', externment and excommunication either express/declared or undeclared are illegal as these powers are not traceable from the letter that spirit of the Waqf Act. We have to observe further that the Jama-ath shall function according to the bye-law of Jama-ath and in terms of the Waqf Act. We hold further that any provisions in the bye-law or scheme in relation to the administration of a Jama-ath or Waqf property authorising 'ooruvilakku', externment and excommunication are also illegal, since the same would infringe the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. The upshot of the discussion is that the revision petitioner at least in the midst of an undeclared or implied ‘ooruvilakku’. Therefore, it is ordered that there shall not be any declared or undeclared ‘ooruvilakku’. Therefore, it is ordered that there shall not be any declared or undeclared ooruvilakku against the petitioner hereinafter.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants would submit that the petitioners do not want to prosecute this Civil Revision Petition further.

¶44

In such circumstances, based on the aforesaid submission

¶45

¶46

CRP No.52 of 2008

¶47

made by the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants, this

¶48

Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE

¶53

Venduvazhi Mahal Muslim Jama-Ath Committ v. v.a.Pareeth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venduvazhi Mahal Muslim Jama-Ath Committ v. v.a.Pareeth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ambala Parambil Kunhayin, Vs the State of Kerala

C. Subramanian Vs Nalini M

Suo Motu Vs State of Kerala

Kerala Nadi Samrakshana Samathi, Register No. 1052/99 Vs Dr. Divya S. Iyer

Baiju, Vs Priyanka Rajeev

Padne Muslim Charitable Trust, Vs Kerala State Wakf Board