CHINNAKKADA MUSLIM JAMA ATH AND OTHERS Vs. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner is the President and petitioners 2 and 3 are the Secretary and Treasurer of the Chinnakkada Muslim Jama Ath Committee, Kollam. This original petition was filed to set aside Ext.P7 order passed by the Waqf Tribunal, Kollam. According to the averments in the original petition, a suit as O.S.38/2015 was filed before the Waqf Tribunal, Kollam, alleging misfeasance and malfeasance, on the then existing committee. The Waqf Tribunal, as per the order in I.A.No.17 of 2016 in the said O.S. appointed an Advocate Commissioner to conduct the election and the Advocate Commissioner conducted election on 7.8.2016 and a new committee assumed charge. During the pendency of O.S.38/2015, the second respondent filed Ext.P2 petition on 14.1.2016 before the Waqf Board, alleging mismanagement against the then committee. Even though, the committee against which the allegations were raised in Ext.P2 ceased to exist as on 7.8.2016, the Board as per Ext.P4 appointed an Executive Officer for the management of the said committee. Ext.P4 order was challenged in Ext.P5 before the tribunal and sought for stay of Ext.P4. The tribunal proceeded in an assumption that Ext.P2 is against the present committee. On the above view, the Tribunal passed Ext.P7 order rejecting the application to stay the operation of Ext.P4 order. The legality and correctness of Ext.P7 order is challenged in this original petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

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

(3.) It is the specific case of the petitioners that O.P.12/2016 was filed, alleging misfeasance and malfeasance of the earlier committee and a new committee has assumed charge, pursuant to the election conducted on 7.8.2016 under the supervision of Advocate Commissioner. But, without considering the assumption of a new committee, the Waqf Board has appointed an Executive Officer on an assumption that the earlier committee was in existence and continuing, at the time of passing Ext.P4 order. But, going by Ext.P7 order passed by the Tribunal, in paragraph 6 of the order, the Tribunal observed that subsequent to the election, the first respondent again filed O.P.12/2016 before the second respondent Waqf Board, alleging that the funds of the Jama-ath are mis-appropriated by the present committee and there must be an Executive Officer for monitoring the accounts.