IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 15TH MAGHA 1932 CRP.No. 2 of 2011() ---------------- OA.10/2010 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE ................. REVISION PETITIONER / PETITIONER : --------------------------------------------------------- KOYAKUTTY MASTER S/O. IMBICHIMAMED HAJI, PAYYANAD THODI HOUSE, PANGANGODE.P.O., MAVOOR, GENERAL SECRETARY, MANHINGATHODI DARUSALAM MADRASSA & MASJIDNOOR, MAVOOR.P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.FIROZ SMT.M.SHAJNA RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS : ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, NEAR JAWAHARLAL NEHRU INTERNATIONAL STADIUM, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.T. ABDURAHIMAN, S/O. KOLLANTHODI MOHAMMED, KALLANTHODI HOUSE, MAVOOR.P.O., KOZHIKODE. 3. ANDIPATTIL MOHAMMED HAJI, S/O. KUNHAVARAN HAJI ANDIPATTI HOUSE, MAVOOR.P.O., KOZHIKODE. R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN, SC, WAKF BOARD R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & P.S.Gopinathan, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P.No.2 of 2011-A = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011. Order Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.This revision is filed invoking the proviso occurring at the foot of Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995. The second respondent filed I.A.17/2010 in E.P.5378/2005 before the Kerala State Wakf Board. By order dt.8.3.2010, that application was allowed and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed directing that the opposite party can also file work memo, if required. The opposite party therein carried that matter to the Wakf Tribunal by filing original application, O.A.10/2010. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Wakf Board. That order of the Tribunal is under challenge before us in this revision. 2.Though the impugned order is passed by the Wakf Tribunal on an original application, it is only CRP.2/11 -: 2 :- one affirming the decision of the Wakf Board allowing an application for issuance of commission. In our view, that does not amount to the determination of any dispute, question or other matter by the Tribunal which would affect the rights of parties. Having regard to the purpose of the exclusion of other jurisdictions and constitution of a Wakf Tribunal and the scheme of the Wakf Act, expediency is a guiding beacon in that jurisdiction. On the totality, we do not find that a revision itself would have been maintainable. Yet, we looked into the merits of the matter as well, since even a revision could deal with correctness, legality or propriety of the determination by the Wakf Tribunal. 3.Though the learned counsel for the revision petitioner made very relevant submissions by pointing out that the order of the Wakf Board is a non-speaking one, we find that it has merged in the order of the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal CRP.2/11 -: 3 :- has considered the original rival contentions. The Tribunal has recorded the rival pleadings and considered the arguments. The Tribunal has given cogent reasons leading to the verdict that it had ultimated rendered. In that judgment making process, the Tribunal has excluded any further allegation that the order of the Wakf Board was a cryptic one. At any rate, it does not survive for consideration at our hands in a revision. With the aforesaid, we looked into the application for issuance of commission and objections. Barring the plea relating to different other aspects, including the fact that there was an earlier report at an earlier point of time, we do not find any specific objection to any of the matters sought to be ascertained. At any rate, no such objection would have sustained since the Wakf Board itself had granted the freedom for the revision petitioner herein also to file work memo when the commission is issued. Under such circumstances, we do not find any CRP.2/11 -: 4 :- ground to interfere with the impugned order. Revision fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. P.S.Gopinathan, Judge. Sha/0902