STATE OF KERALA Vs. AHAMED SHERIEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ appeals at hand take exception to the final judgment dtd. 17/3/2025 passed by the Single Bench of this Court in batch of writ petitions, with the lead one being WP(C) No. 2839/2025 and other connected matters. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Single Bench through reasoned findings quashed the notification dtd. 27/11/2024 issued under the provisions of Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (for short, 'the COI Act'), constituting an Inquiry Commission headed by a former Judge of this Court to inquire into certain issues mentioned there under relating to property situated in Survey No. 18/1 of the Vadakkekara village (hereinafter called 'the subject property'), Kozhikode district. The learned Single Bench held that since the subject property has been declared as a waqf property by the Kerala Waqf Board (for short, KWB), therefore in view of the specific statutory bar under the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995 (for short, 'Act of 1995'), specifically Sec. 83(1), the Inquiry Commission (for short, 'IC') under the COI Act could not have been constituted at the threshold for carrying out any inquiry touching the nature of the said waqf property. Since the IC inevitably would be delving into the contours of the endowment deed through which the said property was gifted to R5, Farooq College Management Committee (for short, 'R5 Farooq Management'), therefore the State Government has acted ultra vires its powers available in the province of COI Act and acted contrary to provisions of Waqf Act, 1995.

(2.) The learned Single Bench also held that since the issue is already pending consideration before the Waqf Tribunal, Kozhikode, which is sought to be inquired into by the IC, recourse to the provisions of COI Act by the State Government was still born and could not have been ever resorted to. The IC has been appointed without any application of mind, which resultantly fails the test of law and consequentially quashed the impugned notification dtd. 27/11/2024 (Exhibit P1 before the Writ Court).

(3.) For the elaborate reasons and detailed findings to follow, we express our inability to agree with the findings of the learned single Judge, which in our opinion are ex facie erroneous, having been passed in ignorance of Mussalman Waqf Act, 1923, Waqf Act, 1954, Waqf Act, 1995 as also the pronouncements of the Supreme Court from time to time.