MUHAMMED MANSOOR Vs. R.V. ABDUL RASHEED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The reliefs sought for in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to direct the Waqf Tribunal, Kozhikode, to take up Exts. P7 to P9 interim applications, filed by the petitioner before the said Tribunal, for consideration and to direct the Tribunal to stall the elections scheduled to be held on 9.2.2020, to the Managing Committee of the 4th respondent Waqf, till Exts. P7 to P9 applications are finally decided.

(2.) Exts. P7 to P9 applications are filed in W.O.S. No. 412/2019, which is pending disposal before the Tribunal. The petitioner herein is not a party in the said suit. It is stated that, the Tribunal had passed an interim order in W.O.S. No. 412/2019, appointing the 21st respondent herein as the Returning Officer to conduct the election to the 4th respondent Waqf. It is pointed that, the said interim order was assailed unsuccessfully in a revision petition filed before this Court. The Returning Officer had published various notifications for conduct of the election. Ext. P1 notification was published on 20.11.2014, which is mainly prescribing the procedure for finalisation of the voters list. Ext. P3 is another notification published on 15.2.2019, which also pertains to the steps taken for verification of identity of members, for the purpose of finalisation of the voters list. Through Ext. P5, the 3rd notification published on 23.1.2020, the election schedule was declared. The last date for submission of nominations was fixed as 27.1.2020. Scrutiny of the nominations and publication of final list of candidates was scheduled on 29.1.2020. Time upto 4.30 p.m. on 29.1.2020 was allotted for the candidates to withdraw the nominations. The date of polling is scheduled to 9.2.2020. The petitioner draws our attention to a specific clause contained in Ext. P5 notification, wherein it is mentioned that, those members who defaulted payment of any subscriptions due to the Jama-ath will not be entitled to contest the election. It is pointed out that, subsequent to submission of the nominations, for which the last date was fixed as 27.1.2020, the Returning Officer had published another notice stating that, the question as to whether the candidates have defaulted payment of any subscriptions will not be scrutinised for accepting the nominations, because clear books of account regarding payments of the subscriptions are not available for verification. According to the petitioner, this is in violation of the provisions contained in the bye-laws of Jama-ath. It is pointed out that, in protest of the irregular action adopted by the Returning Officer to the extent of relaxing the condition with respect to default in payment of subscriptions, the petitioner had submitted Ext. P4 letter withdrawing his nomination submitted to contest in the election. It is stated that the petitioner is very much aggrieved by the action taken by the Returning Officer in relaxing the condition, with respect to scrutiny of the nominations, which, according to him, was published only after receipt of the nominations. In other words, the allegation is that there is a grave irregularity committed in the process of election, which had resulted in the conduct of the election in a manner contrary to provisions in the bye-laws.

(3.) Under the above mentioned circumstances, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal by filing Exts. P7 to P9 interim applications, seeking impleadment in the suit, seeking a temporary injunction directing the Returning Officer to stop the election process, and also seeking to advance the posting date of the case for consideration of those applications. According to the petitioner, those interim applications were filed before the Waqf Tribunal on 4.2.2020. But the Tribunal had not considered the same because, according to the petitioner, one of its members had demitted the office on 30.1.2020 and another member is not in a position to hear the matter since he was appearing as a counsel for one of the parties involved in the suit. According to the petitioner, the Chairman had expressed inability to consider Exts. P7 to P9 applications, urgently. Hence it is stated that the petitioner is left with no other remedy than to approach this Court.