NOWSHAD.P v. THOZHUVANUR KAVUMPURAM JUMA MASJID
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
BY ADVS. R.RAMADAS SRI JAMSHEED HAFIZ - STANDING COUNSEL - KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C)No.2224 of 2024 3 JUDGMENT Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus, commanding the 3rd respondent Waqf Board to implement Ext.P6 order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the 4th respondent Divisional Officer of the Waqf Board at Malappuram.
On 24.01.2024, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court issued notice on admission by special messenger to respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for the State Waqf Board sought time to get instructions.
Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit dated 15.02.2024, opposing the relief sought for in this writ petition, producing therewith Ext.R2(a) petition dated 25.01.2024 made before the Chairman of the Waqf Board and Ext.R2(b) representation dated 25.01.2024 made before the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board against Ext.P6 order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the 4th respondent Divisional Officer.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for Kerala State Waqf Board for respondents 3 and 4. W.P(C)No.2224 of 2024 4
Ext.P6 order of the 4th respondent Divisional Officer, which is sought to be implemented in this writ petition filed on
17.01.2024, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is one dated 20.12.2023. Immediately after obtaining a copy of Ext.P6 order, the petitioner has rushed to this Court in this writ petition, seeking a writ of mandamus for the implementation of that order.
The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 would point out that in view of the provisions under Section 27 of the Waqf Act, 1995 which deals with delegation of power, the power of the Waqf Board to give directions for the administration of Waqfs, under clause (c) of sub-section 2 of Section 32, cannot be delegated to the Chairperson or any other member, Chief Executive Officer or any other officer or servant of the Board or any Area Committee.
The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition, in view of the pendency of the aforesaid petitions before the Chairman and also the Chief Executive Officer of the State Waqf Board. Having considered the submission made at the Bar, we deem it appropriate to dismiss this writ petition as withdrawn, as sought W.P(C)No.2224 of 2024 5 for by the learned counsel for the petitioner; however, after deprecating in the strongest words the conduct of the petitioner in rushing to this Court for implementation of Ext.P6 order, immediately on receipt of a copy of that order. ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/- Sd/- G. GIRISH, JUDGE W.P(C)No.2224 of 2024 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2224/2024 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BYE-LAW OF THE MASJID THOZHUVANOOR COMMITTEE DATED 27/2/2015 MAHALLU JUMA THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 04.11.2023 PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 20.11.2023 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL BODY MEETING ALLEGEDLY HELD DATED 15.09.2023 OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RTI ACT THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION MADE BY THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RTI ACT DATED 16/12/2023 EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 20.12.2023 RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 25.01.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD EXHIBIT R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 25.01.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE OF THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.