HALIM Vs. MUHAMMED BASHEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions have been filed by the defendants in OS (Wakf) No.3/2016 of the Wakf Tribunal, Kollam. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal allowed the suit, thereby issuing the following decree:-

(2.) The issue involved in these revisions is very short. The first defendant is a Jama-ath mosque represented by its Secretary, the administration of which is being done as per bye- law which came into force on 24/3/1972, which was amended from time to time. When elections were notified by the Returning Officer on 18/11/2015, the nomination submitted by the plaintiffs were rejected on the ground that plaintiffs were associated with organizations like Jama-ath Islami and Mujahid. According to the plaintiffs, such rejection of nomination was totally against the provisions of 1972 bye-law and in so far as the plaintiffs were members of the Jama-ath, they were entitled to submit their nominations. Pursuant to the same, election was held on 12/12/2015. Plaintiffs therefore sought for cancellation of the election as well. Plaintiffs further contended that 4 th defendant had relied upon bye-law condition No. 5(4) which prevented members of Jama-ath Islami and Mujahid in becoming office bearers of the Committee. According to the plaintiffs, first of all there was no such amendment and if at all there is an amendment, the same would become invalid.

(3.) Defendants 2 and 3 contended that they are not office bearers. The office bearers of the 1st defendant took charge on 3/1/2016 and they were administering the 1 st defendant Jama- ath. The new office bearers of the Committee are not parties to the suit. It is further submitted that the General Body of the Jama- ath in its meeting held on 26/4/1983 took a decision to extend the period of the Committee by two years from one year. According to them, the nomination was rejected as per the terms of the bye-law. Same contention was urged by the 4 th defendant. 5th defendant is the Wakf Board, who also supported the plaintiffs' view. Defendants 6 and 7 also reiterated the said contentions.