IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 CRP.No. 229 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/03/2010 IN IA 68/2010 IN WOA.7/2010 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------- 1. P.M.SHEREEF, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, VATANAPPILLY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. HAMEEDALI, S/O.LATE MUHAMMEDKUNJU, PUTHENVEETTIL KIZHAKETHIL, VATANAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. P.A.MUHAMMED, S/O.LATE ABU, PANICKAVEETTIL, VATANAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. N.K.ABOOBACKER HAJI, NALAKATH HOUSE, PANICKAVEETTIL, VATANAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 AND 6TH RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. A.T.ABOOBACKER HAJI, S/O.ABDUL HAMEED, THEPPARAMBIL HOUSE, VATANAPPILLY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. A.T.ABDULLA, S/O.ABDUL HAMEED, THEPPARAMBIL HOUSE, VATANAPPILLY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. A.A.MUHAMMED, S/O.AHAMMED, ARAKKAVEETTIL HOUSE, VATANAPPILLY P.O., THRISSUR. 4. KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, V.I.P.ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- CRP. No. 229 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this civil revision petition is an interlocutory order passed by the Wakf Tribunal, Ernakulam staying the operation of an order by the Wakf Board directing conduct of election to the managing committee of the Wakf in question. WOA No. 7 of 2010 in which the impugned interlocutory order is passed itself is directed against the direction to the Wakf for conduct of election and appointing a returning officer. That being so, we feel that the learned Tribunal cannot be blamed for having stayed the operation of the order which was impugned in the WOA pending disposal of the WOA. Sri.ESM Kabeer, learned counsel for the revision petitioner drew our attention an apparent finding contained in the impugned order to the following effect: CRP. No. 229/10 -2- “It is evident that the Muthavalliship is continuing as hereditory. If the proposed election ordered as per Ext.A5 is conducted, the hereditory Muthavalliship would go and in that place a committee would come.” Mr. Kabeer submitted that the above quoted passage will show that the learned Tribunal has already entered final findings in the matter. If those findings are allowed to stand, it is inevitable that the WOA will also be allowed and the order of the Wakf Board impugned in that appeal will be set aside. We find an element of genuineness in the grievance voiced by Mr.ESM Kabeer. Therefore even as we refuse to entertain this revision, we direct the Wakf Tribunal not to be influenced by the above quoted portion of the impugned order and for that matter any other observation made by the Tribunal in the impugned order while taking final decision in the WOA. The findings and observations in the impugned order should be treated as provisional only and made for the purpose of deciding IA. No. 68 of 2010. WOA should be decided on the basis of the materials which CRP. No. 229/10 -3- are available on record and the arguments to be addressed by the counsel for the parties at the time of hearing. Result of the above discussion accordingly is as follows: CRP is dismissed. The learned Wakf Tribunal is directed to take an early decision in WOA No. 7 of 2010 without being influenced in any manner by the observations and apparent findings contained in the impugned order. A decision in the WOA will be taken by the Tribunal at the earliest. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/- CRP. No. 229/10 -4-