C.ABDU Vs. CENTRAL WAQF COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition is filed seeking direction against respondents 1 & 2 to initiate immediate proceedings against the 3rd respondent to realize the loan amount disbursed to the 'Koottayi Puthiya Jumaath Palli Wakf' (hereinafter referred to as the 'wakf concerned'). Relief is also sought for to direct the 2 nd respondent to rectify the entry of the 3rd respondent's name as 'Muthavally' of the wakf concerned; and to add the name of "Makhdoo Miyya Arabi College, and Puthiya Juma-ath Palli Paripalana Committee" as the Muthavally. Inter alia, direction is sought to the 2nd respondent to take immediate steps for restraining the 3rd respondent from acting as the Muthavally of the wakf concerned.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the wakf was administered by committee constituted in the year 1993, with late Haji P.V. Abdullakutty Moulavi as President. He was also acting as the 'Khasi'. It is stated that, after the death of Abdullakutty Moulavi, the 4th respondent took charge as 'Khasi' in the year 2010 and the son of Abdullakutty Moulavi, who is the 3 rd respondent herein was elected as the President of the committee. It is stated that, in the year 2016 the wakf concerned had availed a loan from the 1st respondent for construction of an Auditorium. When income started to flow from the Auditorium constructed, the 3rd respondent declared himself as the sole 'Muthavally' of the wakf and had taken charge of the administration of the affairs of the wakf, in an illegal manner. The 2nd respondent had wrongly recorded the 3rd respondent as the sole 'Muthavally' of the wakf concerned, is the contention. It is alleged that the 3 rd respondent is misusing huge amounts derived in the wakf and is not repaying the loan availed from the 1 st respondent. The allegation is that the respondents 1 & 2 are not taking any effective steps for realizing the loan amount from the 3 rd respondent. Hence the writ petition is filed seeking the reliefs as mentioned above.

(3.) From the records produced along with the writ petition it is evident that, the wakf concerned is registered with the 2 nd respondent since the year 1961, with registration No.2493 RA. As admitted, since 12-03-2010 the 3rd respondent is acting as the 'Muthavally' of the wakf and the 4th respondent is acting as the 'Khasi'. Evidently, the 3rd respondent had filed a suit against the 4th respondent before the Wakf Tribunal as OS No.33/2018, seeking injunction restraining the 4 th respondent from interfering with the administration of the wakf. It is further evident that the 2nd respondent Wakf Board had passed an order on 29-06-2018 removing the 3rd respondent from the Muthavalliship and deputing an Executive Officer for administering affairs of the wakf concerned. The 3 rd respondent had challenged the said order before the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode as OA No.4/2019 (originally filed as OA 15/2018 before the erstwhile Wakf Tribunal / III rd Additional District and Sessions Court, Kozhikode). The Tribunal had disposed of the matter through Ext.P8 judgment, dated 2nd August 2019. Order of the Wakf Board dated 29-06-2018 was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the 2 nd respondent, inorder to consider whether appointment of an Executive Officer for the administration of the wakf is warranted or not. From Ext.P8 judgment it is evident that the petitioner herein was elected as the Secretary to a committee known as the "Koottayi Puthiya Juma-ath Palliparipalana Committee". According to the 3rd respondent, the said committee was dissolved and he became the sole 'Muthavally'. Therefore the 3 rd respondent contended before the Tribunal that the order passed by the Executive Officer to the extent of ousting him from the Muthavallishi, is not legal and proper. However, it is evident that, now the question regarding eligibility for administration of the wakf by the 3rd respondent, is a matter pending decision before the Wakf Board, pursuant to the remand made by the Wakf Tribunal. Therefore the second relief sought for in this writ petition to direct the 2nd respondent to rectify the alleged wrong entry in the records by removing the name of the 3 rd respondent, cannot be allowed in this writ petition. The petitioner will be at liberty to agitate those issues before the Wakf Board, either in the matter which is remanded by the Tribunal or by approaching the Board with any fresh application to that effect. In view of the remand made by the Tribunal and in view of the pendency of the matter for fresh decision before the Wakf Tribunal (2 nd respondent), the relief sought for to the extent of directing the 2nd respondent to restrain the 3rd respondent from acting as Muthavally, also cannot be allowed. It is for the Wakf Board to consider the entire matter and to pass appropriate orders either final or interim, in the matter.