Kerala High Court
Secretary vs Haneef.E.H
Author: K.M.Joseph
Bench: K.M.Joseph, A.Hariprasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2013/2ND SRAVANA, 1935
CRP.No. 386 of 2011 ( D )
------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 01-06-2011 IN WOA 13/2010 of WAKF
TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM AND THE ORDER DATED 14-9-2010 IN E.P.NO.3860/CR
OF THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, ERNAKULAM.
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
--------------------------------------------
SECRETARY, ADIVADU CENTRAL MAHALLU JUMA-ATH,
PALLARIMANGALAM.P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM.
BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ.
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & WAKF BOARD:
---------------------------------------
1. HANEEF.E.H., EERAKKAL VEEDU, ADIVADU,
PALLARIMANGALAM.P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM-686 671.
2. THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
V.I.P.ROAD, KOCHI-17.
R1 BY ADV. SMT.V.H.JASMINE
R2 BY ADVS. SRI.K.K.RAVEENDRANATH, ADDL.SC.,KPSC
& SMT.SHIBILI NAHA SC.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
amk //
K.M.JOSEPH & A.HARIPRASAD, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
C.R.P No.386 OF 2011
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of July, 2013.
O R D E R
K.M.Joseph, J.
Petitioner is the appellant in W.O.A No.13 of 2010 of Wakf Tribunal, Ernakulam. The appeal was filed under Section 83 (2) of the Wakf Act, 1995 against the following order passed by the Kerala State Wakf Board, which reads as follows :-
"Parties present. Perused the counter. Heard both sides. The Jama-ath is directed to issue membership to this petitioner subject to the production of the "viduthal certificate" within one month from the date of this order."
2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Board.
3. The petitioner before the Wakf Board, who is the first respondent herein approached the wakf board apparently seeking a direction to issue membership to him in the Juma-ath. It is the said petition on which order is passed and the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.
C.R.P No.386 OF 2011 2
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that there is no power under Section 32 of the Wakf Act and that the Wakf Act only provides for supervisory powers. There are enumerated powers specifically mentioned. It does not fall under any of the enumerated powers. This court has already considered the matter and held that the power of the Wakf Board is not limited to the supervisory powers, having regard to the nature of the power mentioned in sub-section (1).
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner complains of the cryptic manner in which the Wakf Board passed the order. We would not subscribe to the said method of deciding a case. When there is a list which a body is called upon to decide be it the executive statutory or judiciary, when it affects the rights of parties, we would have expect the authority to set out the contentions, the relief prayed for and also to give some reasons. We see none of these requirements appears to be present in the order of the Wakf Board. Nevertheless, when we perused the order passed by the Tribunal, we find the following reasoning :-
C.R.P No.386 OF 2011 3
"The first respondent admittedly is now residing within the jurisdiction of the appellant Jama-ath. From the counter statement filed by the second respondent it is clear that the first respondent had undertaken before the Juma-ath in question that he will vow allegiance to the bye- law of the juma-ath. As it is disclosed from the counter statement of the first respondent now he has produced the Viduthal Certificate from his former mahallu as directed by the Board also. So the position is that the first respondent is neither the member of his former mahallu nor admitted to the appellant mahallu. The position is really pitiable for the first respondent. When the first respondent has made it clear in black and white before the Board and when he has undertaken in clear terms that he will do justice to the bye-law of the appellant jama-ath, the anxiety of the appellant that the first respondent will act against the interest of the jama-ath and its bye-law is out of place. Admitting a Muslium residing within the jurisdiction of the mahallu concerned and who has expressed his readiness to vow allegiance to the bye-law of the jama-ath will not bring any havoc either to the appellant jama-ath or to any other person. At the same time if the first respondent is denied his membership to the jama- ath at the place of his residence he will be exposed to inconvenience and hardship. So the Board did not go wrong in passing the impugned order though it is very crisp in nature. Therefore, I find that there is nothing to warrant the interference of the impugned order passed by the Wakf Board and accordingly I find that the appeal is only to be dismissed."
6. We take note of the stand of the first respondent which C.R.P No.386 OF 2011 4 has been extracted above. Since it is an undertaking in writing that first respondent will subscribe to the bye-laws of the petitioner, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and the order will stand confirmed and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE.
Sd/-
A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
amk //True Copy// P.A to Judge