IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14940 of 2010(N) ------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. KHUVATHUL ISLAM MAHALLU COMMITTEE, PARUTHIPRA, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. T.MOHAMMED, S/O.EANTHU, THADATHILAKATHU HOUSE, PARUTHIPRA, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED SRI.K.A.SHAMSUDEEN SMT.SEEMA.E.GEORGE SMT.V.H.JASMINE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. ABOOBAKAR, S/O.SAIDALAVI, ALIYACKAL HOUSE, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. A.ABDUL AZIZ, S/O.MOHAMMED, ALIYACKAL HOUSE, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.K.VIPINDAS. ADV. SRI.NISHIL.P.S. FOR R4 & 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.14940 OF 2010 N PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE BYELAW. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE PETITIONERS FOR CONDUCTING THE GENERAL BODY MEETING ON 23.05.2010. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 09.05.2010 SUBMITTED TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 09.05.2010 SUBMITTED TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS; EXT.R4(A) PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION NO.94/2009 DATED 17.6.2009. // True Copy // PS to Judge K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO. 14940 OF 2010 N --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st May, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following relief: “Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 to grant adequate police protection to the petitioners and also for the conduct of the election to the working committee of the 1st petitioner to be held on 23.05.2010.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows: First petitioner is a Mahallu Committee formed for the administration and well being of the Jama-ath-mosque, Madrasa and Khabarstan and also other movable and immovable properties coming within the jurisdiction of its area of operation. WPC.14940/2010N 2 Second petitioner is the Secretary. The Committee was elected on 25.01.2008. As per the byelaw, its term of office is two years. The term expired on 24.01.2010. The Committee convened General Body Meeting on 22.01.2010. But, the election could not be held, it is stated, because of the illegal obstruction of respondents 4 and 5 and their men. It is stated that the election is again scheduled to be held on 23.05.2010. Petitioners have filed Exts.P3 and P4 complaints. Complaining of inaction, petitioners have approached this Court. 3. A Counter Affidavit is filed by respondents 4 and 5, inter alia, stating as follows: There was no byelaw for the Mahal Jama-ath. But, during the month of April 2006, the petitioners and the President of the Mahal Jama-ath without convening the General Body Meeting and without circulation of draft byelaw, constituted the said byelaw. It is meant to protect the interest of certain factions. It WPC.14940/2010N 3 is stated that without convening the General Body of the Mahal Members, the petitioners and other working committee members took charge the administration of the Wakf on 25.1.2008. Respondents 4 and 5 and other three Mahal Members submitted petition to the State Wakf Board vide Ext.R4(a). The Wakf Board issued notice to the the petitioners and posted the case for Counter to 12.4.2010 on which day the petitioners were absent and were set ex parte and the case was posted for ex parte evidence. It is stated that there is no urgency for conducting election. There is a case that the petitioners threatened respondents 4 and 5. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 submits that respondents 4 and 5 have no intention to physically obstruct the holding of the election on 23.5.2010. In the light of this, we record the said submission and dispose of the Writ Petition. If WPC.14940/2010N 4 there is any obstruction by respondents 4 and 5, the petitioners can bring it to the notice of respondents 2 and 3 for appropriate action. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge