UBAIDULLA PATTAKAL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR UT OF LAKSHADWEEP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Muthawalli of Androth Juma Mosque, Lakshadweep. The management and administration of the Mosque are vested with the eldest member of the Pattakkal Tharavadu, and the members of the Aliyathammada family are restrained from interfering in the rights of the former as per Exts.P1 and P2 judgments passed by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, respectively. While so, the members of the Aliyathammada family had filed a suit before the Wakf Tribunal, Lakshadweep, against some of their family members, claiming the right to hold the post of Katheeb in the Mosque. The dispute was decided by this Court as per Ext.P3 judgment, wherein it is directed that if there is no suitable person in the Aliyathammada family, the Mutawalli can appoint the Katheeb from outside the family. The selection process is to be conducted by the Mutawalli in consultation with the Chief Executive Officer of the Lakshadweep Wakf Board - the 9th respondent, and the senior members of the Aliyathammada family. After the passing of Ext.P3 judgment, certain persons claiming to be senior members of the Aliyathammada family had approached the petitioner to appoint them as Katheeb. Meanwhile, the Executive Magistrate of the Androth Island - the 3rd respondent - intervened in the matter and compelled the petitioner to appoint persons of his choice. However, the petitioner did not adhere to the demand. Out of this animosity, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P4 order prohibiting Juma prayers in the Mosque. The petitioner challenged the order before this Court. Then, the 3rd respondent withdrew Ext.P4 order. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P6 order permitting some of the party respondents to perform the functions of Katheeb in the Mosque. The 3rd respondent also passed Ext.P7 order, granting police protection to implement Ext.P6 order. The petitioner has challenged Exts.P6 and P7 orders before this Court, and Ext.P8 order has been passed, staying the impugned orders. The petitioner had taken steps to appoint the Katheeb from the Aliyathammada family after publishing notices and intimating the matter to the 9th respondent and the senior members of the Aliyathammada family. But there was no response from anyone. As there is no suitable person in the Aliyathammada family to be appointed as Katheeb in the Mosque, the petitioner appointed a person named Mohammed Magroof Lateefi as the Katheeb as per Ext.P31 appointment order. Immediately, the members of the Aliyathammada family issued Ext.P32 letter demanding the withdrawal of the appointment letter. The Katheeb has joined the Mosque on 24/1/2025. Apprehending a law-and-order problem, the petitioner submitted Exts.P35 to 37 representations to the respondents 1 to 4 for police protection to enable the Katheeb to carry out his duties. However, no action has been taken. The inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 4 is arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.

(2.) The respondents 5 to 8 have filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations in the writ petition. They have, inter alia, contended that the petitioner has wrongly interpreted the directions in Ext.P3 judgment. By Ext.P3 judgment, this Court has explicitly held that the right to select the Katheeb is vested with the Aliyathammada family. Only when there are no suitable persons in the above family can an outsider be appointed as Katheeb, in consultation with the 9th respondent and the senior members of the Aliyathammada family. The petitioner has not followed the procedure in appointing the present Katheeb. The petitioner has no unfettered right to select the Katheeb. The petitioner is seeking police protection in favour of a Katheeb, who is not a member of the Aliyathammada family. The respondents 5 to 8 had furnished a list of 13 persons who were selected by the senior members of the Aliyathammada family to be appointed to the post of Katheeb to the petitioner and the 9th respondent. The contention of the petitioner that those 13 persons are unsuitable and some are fishermen is untenable. The persons, referred to as fishermen, own fishing boats and are engaged in the sale of fish. The selected persons have recited the Kuthuba on earlier occasions. The petitioner is trying to make the selection process to the post of Katheeb, similar to the selection process adopted by the Public Service Commission. The unilateral decision of the petitioner to select an outsider without consulting and having the concurrence of the members of the Aliyathammada family and the 9th respondent is ex-facie illegal. The petitioner is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and enforce a disputed right. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.

(3.) The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 5 to 8.