MOHAMMED IBRAHIM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Considering a petition filed by the petitioner under S.32 of the Wakf Act, the Judicial Committee of the Wakf Board of Kerala had on 27.7.2002 passed an interim order as Ext. P7 whereby the petitioner was appointed as interim Mutawalli of Manjakulam Jaram, since according to them, there was a vacuum in the office of Mutawalli. Respondents 2 and 3 herein had got impleaded to the proceedings and attempted to get the order vacated, but were not successful. The Chief Executive Officer had been directed by the Judicial Committee to issue public notice, calling for objections from interested persons, and the matter had been posted for objection and hearing to 9th September. Ext. P10, later on produced by the petitioner, shows that the order in fact had been modified by the Wakf Board on 12.8.2002, making it clear that the petitioner is to act as interim Mutawalli, in respect of the Jaram only. But before the decision of the Board came, clarifying the order of the Committee, complaining about the maintainability of the earlier order of the Committee, the third respondent had petitioned to the Government on 12.8.2002. On the petition, the Government on 14.8.2002 issued the following instructions to the Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board:

(2.) Mr. T.H. Abdul Azeez appeared for the petitioner, and Sri. P.N.K. Achan, instructed by Advocate Sri. Mohanakannan, appeared for respondents 2 and 3. The learned Government Pleader represented the first respondent.

(3.) The only contention of the petitioner is that Ext. P1 order of the Government is illegal, and one passed without jurisdiction ie., the Government cannot act as an appellate or supervisory authority over the decision of the Wakf Board or any of its committees, going by the terms of the Act. But the matter was hotly contested, and necessarily advertence to the arguments might be necessary. In view of the background of the case also, I may have to attempt for a brief narration of facts. Respondents had fielded objections, regarding Ext. P7 proceedings, and the maintainability of the same, especially in view of a recent remand order passed by this Court while disposing C.R.P. No. 914 of 2001 and certain connected cases between the parties. Therefore, the circumstances leading to the Civil Revision Petition also are to be noticed.