IBRAHIM Vs. PERUMATTOM MAHALLU JUMA-ATH COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a member as well as a beneficiary of the first respondent Jama-ath. The Waqf properties are under the administration and management of the first respondent as its muthawalli. According to the petitioner, certain office bearers of the first respondent executed Ext P1 lease deed purported to be for and on behalf of the first respondent in favour of the second respondent giving a large extent of Waqf properties having a total extent of about 360 cents for a period of 30 years for a paltry sum of Rs 250/- per month and the said deed was executed in violation of Sec.56 of the Waqf Act. Aggrieved by the aforesaid illegal activities of the first respondent, the petitioner and others have preferred Ext P2 original suit before the tribunal. During the pendency of Ext P2, first respondent passed Ext P4 order whereby Ext P1 was regularised, though it was a void document. Aggrieved by Ext P4 order, the petitioner has preferred OP(Waqf) 39/2014 before this court with a prayer to quash Ext P4 and after hearing both parties this court passed Ext P5 order, quashed Ext P4 and the parties were given liberty to seek relief including interlocutory from the Waqf tribunal with respect to the alleged lease deed and rights thereunder. But the first respondent in violation of the specific direction in Ext P5, passed Ext P6 accepting and regularising Ext P1 lease deed as done earlier in Ext P4. The petitioner submitted that Ext P6 order is passed to circumvent Ext P5 order passed by this court in OP(Waqf) 39/2014. Therefore Ext P6 is liable to be quashed in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) We have meticulously gone through Exts P4 and P6 in the light of Ext P5 order passed by this court. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, OP(Waqf) No.39/2014 was filed against the regularisation of Ext P1 lease deed and the case put forward by the petitioner in that original petition was that the aforesaid lease deed was executed in violation of Sec.56 of the Waqf Act and thereby the said lease deed is a void document. Significantly Ext P2 original suit is pending before the Waqf Tribunal challenging Ext P1 lease deed. In the above context, this court in Ext P5 order specifically held that having regard to the nature of the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal in terms of the Waqf Act 1995, it is within the domain of the Waqf Tribunal to consider any interlocutory orders for regulating the parties and their conduct during the pendency of Ext P2 suit. We have gone through Exts P4 and P6 orders . On a combined reading we find that Ext P6 order was passed to circumvent the direction of this court in Ext P5 in an indirect way. Therefore Ext P6 is per se illegal and liable to be quashed at the threshold without considering the reasonings in Ext P6 and we do so.