IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1487 of 2011(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. S.V.P.POOKOYA, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O. SYED KOYA, RESIDING AT SHEIKINTE VEEDU, PADIPPURA, ANDROTH ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP. 2. S.V.SAYD YOUSUF KOYA THANGAL, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIKOYA TANGAL, RESIDING AT SHEIKINTE VEEDU, ANDROTH ISLAND,LAKSHADWEEP ISLAND 3. S.V.SYED MUHAMMED KOYA THANGAL,AGED 52, S/O.ATTAKOYA TANGAL, RESIDING AT SHEIKINTE VEEDU, ANDROTH ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP ISLAND. 4. S.V.P.HASSAN KOYA THANGAL, AGED 36 YEARS S/O.JAMALUDHEEN, THANGAL, RESIDING AT SHEIKINTE VEEDU PADIPPURA, ANDROWTH ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP ISLAND. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.P.A.HARISH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. LAKSHADWEEP STAE WAKF BOARD, KAVARATTI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/ SECRETARY, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEP, NEAR DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, SANTHIPATH ROAD, KAVARATTI LAKSHADWEEP ISLAND - 682553. 2. S.V.CHERIYAKOYA THANGAL,S/O.KOYAMMAKOYA THANGAL, RESIDING AT SHEIKINTE VEEDU, ANDRROTH ISLAND, LAKSHADWEE ISLAND - 682551. 3. U.C.K.THANGAL, CHAIRMAN,LAKSHADWEEP STATE WAKF BOARD, KAVARATTI, UNION TERITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP,NEAR DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT SANTHIPATH ROAD, KAVARATTI LAKSHADWEEP ISLAND - 682553. ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN FOR R1 SRI.SHYAM PADMAN FOR R2 SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN FOR R2 SMT.M.LISHA FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.1487/11 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT 13.10.2010. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF the COMMISSION APPOINTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 7.1.11. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AGAINST EXT.P2 PROCEEDINGS AS DIRECTED BY THE COMMISSION. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 1487 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T What led the petitioners to approach this Court is Ext.P2 proceedings of the committee headed by the 3rd respondent scheduling proceedings in WC No.1/2010 and connected case at Kavaratty on the 2nd of February, 2011. 2. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that Ext.P1 is the proceedings of the 1st respondent appointing the committee headed by the 3rd respondent for recording the evidence in the aforesaid proceedings. Ext.P1 also specifies that the venue of such enquiry shall be at Androth and the reasons thereof are also mentioned in Ext.P1. The complaint of the petitioners is that, despite the above, by Ext.P2 dated 7/1/2011, the Committee headed by the 3rd respondent scheduled the enquiry on 2nd of February and the venue fixed is Kavaratti. It is stated that, thereupon the petitioners filed Ext.P3 objection against the venue fixed at Kavaratti. Orders were not passed and therefore the writ petition has been filed. 3. I heard the counsel appearing for the parties. WPC No. 1487/11 :2 : 4. It is pointed out on behalf of respondents that initially the enquiry held in October/November was at Androth and that subsequently enquiry was held at Kavaratty on 20th and 21st of November. It is stated that, thereafter, on one occasion, further enquiry was held at Androth and that it was thereafter that the proceedings are now scheduled to be held at Kavaratti. It is also stated that what remains is to record the further evidence of the 2nd respondent and hearing of certain interlocutory applications are also to be held. It is the contention of the respondents that proceedings are scheduled at Kavaratty on the agreement of the parties. 5. Counsel for the petitioners strongly disputed the contention of the respondents that they have agreed for enquiry at Kavaratty. 6. Irrespective of the controversy now raised between the parties, fact remains that Ext.P1 is the proceedings of the 1st respondent appointing the Committee for conducting enquiry. Ext.P1 proceedings of the 1st respondent also fixes the venue, which is Androth, and therefore, so long as Ext.P1 remains without any modification, enquiry should have been held in compliance WPC No. 1487/11 :3 : thereof and the Committee could not have shifted the venue. In that view of the matter, I find merit in the case of the petitioners that the enquiry should have been fixed at Androth. Despite this, even the petitioners have no objection in the Committee conducting its proceedings at Kavaratty only for the limited purpose of concluding hearing on the interlocutory applications. 7. Now that such submissions have been made by the petitioners also, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:- (1) That the Committee headed by the 3rd respondent will be free to hold its proceedings at Kavaratty on the 2nd of February, 2011 for the limited purpose of hearing interlocutory applications. (2) The Committee shall thereafter schedule its further enquiry at Androth as specified in Ext.P1 for the further examination of the 2nd respondent and for further enquiry, if any. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp