NIZAMUDHEEN Vs. KUTTIYIL AZEEZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all the above revision petitions arise from a common order passed by the wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode and since the issue agitated pertains to management and elections with respect to the same wakf, "Poyiloor Muslim Jama-ath committee" (herein after referred to as the wakf), all the above Revision Petitions were considered together and disposed of through this common judgment.

(2.) The respondents 1 to 4 in CRP(wakf)No.61 of 2019 had approached the Kerala State wakf Board in OP No.247 of 2017, seeking to order an overall enquiry with respect to administration of the wakf and to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to conduct the elections to the Managing committee of the wakf, as per the bye-laws. Originally the wakf represented by its Secretary as well as the President and Secretary in their individual capacity were cited as respondents before the wakf Board. It was pointed out before the Wakf Board that as per terms of the bye-laws, the tenure of the committee is for a period of one year and that the tenure of the present committee had expired on 15.3.2016, as they were elected on 16.3.2015. It was alleged that there occurred delay in convening General Body of the wakf for the purpose of conducting the election. Hence, the reliefs as mentioned above were sought for.

(3.) The President of the wakf filed counter before the Board contending that the wakf committee is registered under the Societies Registration Act , 1860 and it has got written bye-laws. It was contended that the petitioners before the Board are not the members of the wakf and has no locus standi to file the petition. It was also pointed out that an earlier petition, OP No.70 of 2013, filed before the Board was settled as per terms agreed between the parties therein and it was agreed upon that the present committee is administering the wakf. It was further contended that, in the terms of settlement it was mentioned that membership of the wakf can be decided only after taking evidence by the Board and it cannot be decided by the Returning Officer. Therefore the President of the wakf had opposed the relief sought to the extent of conducting election by the Board through an Advocate Commissioner.