M A MUHAMMED KUNJU Vs. BIJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers:

(2.) The petitioner is the President of Kollakadavu Juma-ath. Ext.P5 interim order passed by the Wakf Tribunal, Kollam is under challenge in this Writ Petition. As per Ext.P5 order, the Tribunal directed the parties to maintain status quo till the matter is heard on merits and appropriate decision taken on the application for interim injunction. The dispute is between the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 who are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 20 of 2007 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal, Kollam. Ext.P2 is the plaint originally filed before the Munsiff s Court, Chengannur and subsequently returned by the court to be presented before the appropriate forum finding that the civil court has no jurisdiction. The same suit was thus filed before the Wakf Tribunal Kollam and numbered as O.S. No. 20 of 2007.

(3.) Kollakadavu Juma-ath is a Wakf registered under the Wakf Act. The administration and management of the Juma-ath is vested in the Managing Committee elected as per the bye laws of the Juma-ath. In Ext.P2 suit it is stated that the President and certain other office bearers of the Juma-ath constituted an election committee with the 4th respondent as its convener and in July 2007 published election conditions for conducting election of the Juma-ath altering the basic structures of the committee. Many changes were introduced in the election process totally discarding the real and original bye law and the proposed amendment of the original bye law was neither placed before the general body nor approved by it. It is also alleged in the suit that the constitution of the election committee and appointment of the 4th respondent as the convener are illegal and that they have no right to conduct the election in violation of the bye law. It is also averred that the President or other office bearers of the Juma-ath have no right to publish election notification against the provisions of the 1957 by law which is in force or to conduct election in accordance with the said election notification. According to the plaintiffs, the proposed election is illegal and void since it is against the bye law and was published against the provisions of the bye law and, therefore, the conduct of the defendants is illegal and has to be declared as null and void. Subsequently, the same plaintiffs filed another petition before the Wakf Board as W.O.S. No. 92 of 2007 reiterating the same averments. It is also stated in paragraph 6 of Ext.P6 that the illegality committed by the defendants in acting against the bye law has resulted in causing hindrance to the smooth administration of the Wakf and that steps are taken by the defendants to conduct the election illegally and against the terms of the bye law and that the said conduct is also causing hindrance to the welfare and unity of the members of the Juma-ath. In short, the grievance of respondents 1 and 2 is that the affairs of the Wakf in question are being mismanaged by the committee in power and,therefore, the Wakf was not functioning properly and hence requires interference.