BY AD vs P.A.ABDUL JABBAR

BY ADVS. P.A.ABDUL JABBAR MUHAMMED SHAFFI(K/1201/2012) GP SRI AJITH VISWANATHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) No.4759 of 2025 3 JUDGMENT Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2025 The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents 2, 3 and 5 to afford adequate police protection to the petitioner and its workers to carry out the maintenance work of the Andamukkam Salafi Masjid Kollam (‘Mosque’, for brevity).

2. The Mosque was established in 2008. The Mosque is registered under the Kerala State Wakf Board (‘Board’ in short). The petitioner had submitted Exts.P5 and P6 requests to the Board, to carryout the maintenance work of the Mosque. By Ext.P7 report, the Board has granted permission to carryout the maintenance work. On

16.12.2024, when the maintenance work was in progress, the 6th respondent, who was the previous member of the committee, along with the respondents 7 to 11 obstructed the work. They manhandled the workers. The illegal acts were repeated on 31.01.2025. Although the petitioner filed Exts.P11 and 12 complaints before the respondents 3 to 5, no action has been taken. Hence, the writ petition. WP(C) No.4759 of 2025 4 3. Respondents 6 to 11 have filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations in the writ petition. They have contended that the Mosque was purchased by collecting public funds from the local Muslims. The person representing the petitioner was the former Secretary of the Mosque Committee. He had assaulted the 6th respondent. By Ext.P10 order, the 4th respondent has ordered status-quo in respect of the Mosque to be maintained. The person representing the petitioner is not the Mutawalli of the Mosque. The dispute is pending consideration before the Board as O.P. No.52/2025. If police protection is ordered, there will be a law and order problem in the Mosque. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.

4. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 12th respondent Board the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents.

5. It is an undisputed fact that the 4th respondent has passed Ext.P10 order ordering the parties to maintain WP(C) No.4759 of 2025 5 status-quo in respect of the Mosque. The question whether the person representing the petitioner is a Mutawalli or not is also subjudice before the Wakf Board in O.P No.52/2025. Apparently, there are civil disputes between the parties.

6. In P.R. Murlidharan and others v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and others [(2006) 4 SCC 501], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the question whether an order of police protection can be granted to protect a person's right to property or to an office, has held as follows: “12. It is one thing to say that in a given case a person may be held to be entitled to police protection, having regard to the threat perception, but it is another thing to say that he is entitled thereto for holding an office and discharging certain functions when his right to do so is open to question. A person could not approach the High Court for the purpose of determining such disputed questions of fact which were beyond the scope and purport of the jurisdiction of the High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction as it also involved determination of disputed questions of fact. *** *** *** *** 17. A writ petition under the guise of seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to give protection to a writ petitioner, cannot be made a forum for adjudicating on civil rights. It is one thing to approach the High Court, for issuance of such a writ on a plea that a particular party has not obeyed a decree or an order of injunction passed in favour of the writ petitioner, was deliberately flouting that decree or order and in spite of the petitioner applying for it, or that the police authorities are not giving him the needed protection in terms of the decree or order passed by a court with jurisdiction. But, it is WP(C) No.4759 of 2025 6 quite another thing to seek a writ of mandamus directing protection in respect of property, status or right which remains to be adjudicated upon and when such an adjudication can only be got done in a properly instituted civil suit. It would be an abuse of process for a writ petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to protect his claimed possession of a property without first establishing his possession in an appropriate civil court. The temptation to grant relief in cases of this nature should be resisted by the High Court. The wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would remain effective and meaningful only when it is exercised prudently and in appropriate situations. 18. **** *** **** A writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to give protection to the person of a writ petitioner can be issued, when the court is satisfied that there is a threat to his person and the authorities have failed to perform their duties and it is different from granting relief for the first time to a person either to allegedly protect his right to property or his right to an office, especially when the pleadings themselves disclose that disputed questions are involved. My learned Brother has rightly pointed out that the High Court was in error in proceeding to adjudicate on the rights and obligations arising out of the trust deed merely based on the affidavits and the deed itself. I fully agree with my learned Brother that the High Court should not have undertaken such an exercise on the basis that the right of the writ petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution is sought to be affected by the actions of the contesting respondents and their supporters and that can be prevented by the issue of the writ of mandamus prayed for”. (emphasis given)

7. Recently, in Padmanabhan N v. State of Kerala (2024 KHC Online 7177), the Division Bench of this Court has held as follows: “6. Police protection cannot be asked for issues that fall within the jurisdiction of civil courts, particularly when it involves resolving private disputes between parties. It is well established in law that civil rights must be adjudicated by competent civil WP(C) No.4759 of 2025 7 courts. The enforcement of civil court orders should be carried out in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or any relevant statute that establishes the appropriate forums for such matters. *** *** *** *** *** 8. Seeking and employing a police force cannot be a means to sidestep the need for dispute resolution in competent courts. Invariably, such directions are sought invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” On a consideration of the facts and the materials on record, particularly that there are civil disputes between the parties and the 4th respondent has ordered status-quo to be maintained, I am not inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Nonetheless, the 5th respondent is directed to ensure that the law and order is maintained in the Mosque, without interfering in any civil dispute between the parties. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. AJ Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE WP(C) No.4759 of 2025 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4759/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED FROM THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD DATED 13/06/2024 TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1195/1/2006 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 17/07/2023 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13/06/2024 ISSUED FROM THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER WAKF BOARD TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER WAKF BOARD DATED 4.1.2025 Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE WORK AGREEMENT DATED 12/12/24 Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 20/01/2025 SUBMITTED BY THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27/01/2025 SENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 2342 DATED 18/12/2024 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 30/01/2025 Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 31/01/2025 FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 31/01/2025 FILED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 29.03.2025 Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 30.03.2025 IN CRIME NO. 0838/2025 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION WP(C) No.4759 of 2025 9 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit- R6(a) True copy of the causality outpatient Ticket dt:

16.12.2024 issued from the General Hospital, Kollam. Exhibit- R6(b) True copy of the complaint dated 23.12.024 submitted before the Station House Officer, East Police Station Kollam. Exhibit- R6(c) True copy of the receipt received from East Police Station Kollam. Exhibit- R6(d) True copy of the complaint dt. 23.12.2024 submitted before the Commissioner of police Kollam Exhibit- R6(e) True copy of the receipt received from the Commissioner of police Kollam. Exhibit- R6(f) True copy of the voucher for paying the salary to the Imam dated 10.01.2025. Exhibit- R6(g) True copy of the voucher for paying the salary to the Khatheeb dated 27.12.2024. Exhibit- R6(h) True copy of the receipt dated 21.01.2025 for paying electricity charge of the month of December to the KSEB. Exhibit- R6(i) True copy of the tax paid receipt for the period 2024-25 dt 17.11.2024 issued from Kollam East Village Office Exhibit- R6(j) True copy of the application dated 04.03.2024 submitted by the Petitioner before the Waqf Board for registration Exhibit- R6(k) True copy of the Waqf Register pertaining to the said Waqf kept by the Waqf Board. Exhibit- R6(l) True copy of the application dt: 06.01.2025 submitted under RTI to the 12th Respondent. Exhibit- R6(m) True copy of the reply dt:03.02.2025 issued by Addl: 12th respondent. WP(C) No.4759 of 2025 10 Exhibit- R6(n) True copy of the Judgment dt 29.01.2025 passed in W.P.(C) 3708/25. Exhibit- R6(o) True copy of the summons issued by the K.S.W.B in O.P 52/2025 to the Petitioner herein.

BY ADVS. P.A.ABDUL JABBAR MUHAMMED SHAFFI(K/1201/2012) GP SRI AJITH VISWANATHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) No.4759 of 2025 3 JUDGMENT Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2025 The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents 2, 3 and 5 to afford adequate police protection to the petitioner and its workers to carry out the maintenance work of the Andamukkam Salafi Masjid Kollam (‘Mosque’, for brevity).

2. The Mosque was established in 2008. The Mosque is registered under the Kerala State Wakf Board (‘Board’ in short). The petitioner had submitted Exts.P5 and P6 requests to the Board, to carryout the maintenance work of the Mosque. By Ext.P7 report, the Board has granted permission to carryout the maintenance work. On

16.12.2024, when the maintenance work was in progress, the 6th respondent, who was the previous member of the committee, along with the respondents 7 to 11 obstructed the work. They manhandled the workers. The illegal acts were repeated on 31.01.2025. Although the petitioner filed Exts.P11 and 12 complaints before the respondents 3 to 5, no action has been taken. Hence, the writ petition. WP(C) No.4759 of 2025 4 3. Respondents 6 to 11 have filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations in the writ petition. They have contended that the Mosque was purchased by collecting public funds from the local Muslims. The person representing the petitioner was the former Secretary of the Mosque Committee. He had assaulted the 6th respondent. By Ext.P10 order, the 4th respondent has ordered status-quo in respect of the Mosque to be maintained. The person representing the petitioner is not the Mutawalli of the Mosque. The dispute is pending consideration before the Board as O.P. No.52/2025. If police protection is ordered, there will be a law and order problem in the Mosque. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.

4. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 12th respondent Board the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents.

5. It is an undisputed fact that the 4th respondent has passed Ext.P10 order ordering the parties to maintain WP(C) No.4759 of 2025 5 status-quo in respect of the Mosque. The question whether the person representing the petitioner is a Mutawalli or not is also subjudice before the Wakf Board in O.P No.52/2025. Apparently, there are civil disputes between the parties.

6. In P.R. Murlidharan and others v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and others [(2006) 4 SCC 501], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the question whether an order of police protection can be granted to protect a person's right to property or to an office, has held as follows: “12. It is one thing to say that in a given case a person may be held to be entitled to police protection, having regard to the threat perception, but it is another thing to say that he is entitled thereto for holding an office and discharging certain functions when his right to do so is open to question. A person could not approach the High Court for the purpose of determining such disputed questions of fact which were beyond the scope and purport of the jurisdiction of the High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction as it also involved determination of disputed questions of fact. *** *** *** *** 17. A writ petition under the guise of seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to give protection to a writ petitioner, cannot be made a forum for adjudicating on civil rights. It is one thing to approach the High Court, for issuance of such a writ on a plea that a particular party has not obeyed a decree or an order of injunction passed in favour of the writ petitioner, was deliberately flouting that decree or order and in spite of the petitioner applying for it, or that the police authorities are not giving him the needed protection in terms of the decree or order passed by a court with jurisdiction. But, it is WP(C) No.4759 of 2025 6 quite another thing to seek a writ of mandamus directing protection in respect of property, status or right which remains to be adjudicated upon and when such an adjudication can only be got done in a properly instituted civil suit. It would be an abuse of process for a writ petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to protect his claimed possession of a property without first establishing his possession in an appropriate civil court. The temptation to grant relief in cases of this nature should be resisted by the High Court. The wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would remain effective and meaningful only when it is exercised prudently and in appropriate situations. 18. **** *** **** A writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to give protection to the person of a writ petitioner can be issued, when the court is satisfied that there is a threat to his person and the authorities have failed to perform their duties and it is different from granting relief for the first time to a person either to allegedly protect his right to property or his right to an office, especially when the pleadings themselves disclose that disputed questions are involved. My learned Brother has rightly pointed out that the High Court was in error in proceeding to adjudicate on the rights and obligations arising out of the trust deed merely based on the affidavits and the deed itself. I fully agree with my learned Brother that the High Court should not have undertaken such an exercise on the basis that the right of the writ petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution is sought to be affected by the actions of the contesting respondents and their supporters and that can be prevented by the issue of the writ of mandamus prayed for”. (emphasis given)

7. Recently, in Padmanabhan N v. State of Kerala (2024 KHC Online 7177), the Division Bench of this Court has held as follows: “6. Police protection cannot be asked for issues that fall within the jurisdiction of civil courts, particularly when it involves resolving private disputes between parties. It is well established in law that civil rights must be adjudicated by competent civil WP(C) No.4759 of 2025 7 courts. The enforcement of civil court orders should be carried out in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or any relevant statute that establishes the appropriate forums for such matters. *** *** *** *** *** 8. Seeking and employing a police force cannot be a means to sidestep the need for dispute resolution in competent courts. Invariably, such directions are sought invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” On a consideration of the facts and the materials on record, particularly that there are civil disputes between the parties and the 4th respondent has ordered status-quo to be maintained, I am not inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Nonetheless, the 5th respondent is directed to ensure that the law and order is maintained in the Mosque, without interfering in any civil dispute between the parties. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. AJ Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE WP(C) No.4759 of 2025 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4759/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED FROM THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD DATED 13/06/2024 TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1195/1/2006 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 17/07/2023 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13/06/2024 ISSUED FROM THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER WAKF BOARD TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER WAKF BOARD DATED 4.1.2025 Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE WORK AGREEMENT DATED 12/12/24 Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 20/01/2025 SUBMITTED BY THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27/01/2025 SENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 2342 DATED 18/12/2024 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 30/01/2025 Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 31/01/2025 FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 31/01/2025 FILED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 29.03.2025 Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 30.03.2025 IN CRIME NO. 0838/2025 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION WP(C) No.4759 of 2025 9 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit- R6(a) True copy of the causality outpatient Ticket dt:

16.12.2024 issued from the General Hospital, Kollam. Exhibit- R6(b) True copy of the complaint dated 23.12.024 submitted before the Station House Officer, East Police Station Kollam. Exhibit- R6(c) True copy of the receipt received from East Police Station Kollam. Exhibit- R6(d) True copy of the complaint dt. 23.12.2024 submitted before the Commissioner of police Kollam Exhibit- R6(e) True copy of the receipt received from the Commissioner of police Kollam. Exhibit- R6(f) True copy of the voucher for paying the salary to the Imam dated 10.01.2025. Exhibit- R6(g) True copy of the voucher for paying the salary to the Khatheeb dated 27.12.2024. Exhibit- R6(h) True copy of the receipt dated 21.01.2025 for paying electricity charge of the month of December to the KSEB. Exhibit- R6(i) True copy of the tax paid receipt for the period 2024-25 dt 17.11.2024 issued from Kollam East Village Office Exhibit- R6(j) True copy of the application dated 04.03.2024 submitted by the Petitioner before the Waqf Board for registration Exhibit- R6(k) True copy of the Waqf Register pertaining to the said Waqf kept by the Waqf Board. Exhibit- R6(l) True copy of the application dt: 06.01.2025 submitted under RTI to the 12th Respondent. Exhibit- R6(m) True copy of the reply dt:03.02.2025 issued by Addl: 12th respondent. WP(C) No.4759 of 2025 10 Exhibit- R6(n) True copy of the Judgment dt 29.01.2025 passed in W.P.(C) 3708/25. Exhibit- R6(o) True copy of the summons issued by the K.S.W.B in O.P 52/2025 to the Petitioner herein.