SYED FAZAL POOKOYA THANGAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First petitioner in O.P.10680/92 is the Chairman of the Kerala Wakf Board and the second petitioner is one of the members of the Kerala Wakf Board (for short the Board). By virtue of the powers conferred by S.11 of the Wakf Act, 1955 Government of Kerala appointed eleven members of the Board on 23-11-1990. The term of office of the member of the Board is 5 years. It is contended that the Board is a high power statutory body constituted for the purpose of better administration and supervision of wakfs. The petitioners further contend that the members of the Board have been discharging their duties honestly and diligently. S.64(1) of the Wakf Act gives power to the Government to supersede the Board. This power could be exercised if the State Government is of the opinion that the Board is unable to perform or has persistently made default in the performance of the duty imposed on it by or under this Act or has exceeded or abused its powers. Before exercising the power under S.64(1) the State Government shall give reasonable time to the Board to show cause why it should not be superseded and shall consider the explanation and objection, if any, of the Board. Petitioners allege that the Government of Kerala is now taking hasty steps to supersede the Kerala Wakf Board. It is alleged that the Government issued a notice to the Secretary of the Board to show cause why the Board is not superseded within a period of 3 weeks from the date of the notice. The notice was given to the Secretary on 17-7-92. The copy of the notice is produced as Ext. P2 and one of the allegations against the Board is that in respect of a tender notice, notice was not published in newspapers and the other allegation is in respect of leasing out of a portion of the building in favour of a third party. The allegation is that the Board had let out a building for a lesser amount of rent than that was quoted by the tenant's counsel.

(2.) Petitioners allege that in respect of the contract work the total amount involved was Rs.60350/- and the tenders were invited only by publication on the notice board. The omission to invite tenders through proper publication was a bona fide mistake on the part of the secretary of the Board. The Board is not having a qualified secretary since 1987. The omission to publish the notice relating to the tender in newspaper was only an irregularity occasioned solely due to the lack of experienced secretary.

(3.) As regards the allegation relating to the letting out of the portion of the building of the Board, it is contended that one Jose Alappat had agreed to take the portion of the building in question for a monthly rent of Rs.7500/-. His counsel by mistake had reported that Jose Alappat was willing to take up the building for a monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/-. This mistake was corrected in time by the counsel himself. Originally the rent was Rs.5,000/- and thereafter it was enhanced to Rs.8,000/-. The enhancement was more than 60%. Subsequently the tenant was permitted to modify the portion of the building at his own expense and the monthly rent now payable by him is Rs.11,500/-. The petitioners alleged that as regards the allegations relating to the tender were got investigated through a police officer and the report submitted by the police officer was not served on the petitioners. Therefore, it is contended that the Government is attempting to fabricate false evidence behind the back of the petitioners. According to the petitioners the Wakf Board is a statutory body created for the purpose of administration of the wakfs and the State Government is legally incompetent to interfere with the affairs of the Board. It is further alleged that the petitioners were not given proper notice regarding the proposed supersession of the Board. Notice was given only to the Secretary of the Board and therefore the petitioners seek to quash the proceedings leading to the issuance of Ext. P2 notice.