IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 36781 of 2008(S) -------------------------- WOA.5/2007 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.MUHAMMED ALI, S/O CHALIAYAN ABU, CHALIYAN HOUSE, ALANALLUR, THIRUVAZHAM KUNNU, POST.THIRUVAZHAM KUNNU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.ABDUL SALAM SRI.M.A.MUNEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KONNARAM JAMA-ATH PALLI COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, MUHAMMED, S/O.KUNJU MOIDU, MADAMPARA HOUSE, THIRUVAZHAM KUNNU, POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. KONNARAM JAMA-ATH PALLI COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS, SECRETARY NAZAR, THIRUVAZHAMKUNNU PO, PALAKKAD. 3. THE WAKF BOARD REPRESENTED THROUGH THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA STATE BOARD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SAIDU MUHAMMED,SC,WAKF BOARD FOR R3 BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 36781 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 18th September, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P5 order passed by the Wakf Tribunal in an appeal filed under Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act. The grievance of the petitioner is regarding the cutting of a new road alleged to have been decided by the general body of the Wakf. Petitioner disputed that there was any such decision and approached the Wakf Board for necessary relief. The Wakf Board decided the case against the petitioner, whereupon, an appeal under Section 83(2) has been preferred before the Wakf Tribunal. 2. Admittedly, such appeal was preferred beyond 30 days which is the prescribed time limit within which an appeal ought to have been filed under Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act. The Tribunal also went into merits of the contentions and held W.P.(C) No.36781 of 2008 2 that the decision taken by the general body for construction of road is not actuated by any malafides. 3. Against the order passed in Ext.P5, instead of preferring a revision as contemplated by proviso to Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, the petitioner has chosen to file a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The first question that arises for consideration is as to whether the remedy is barred by limitation, as found by the Wakf Tribunal. Admittedly, the appeal was not preferred within 30 days. As per Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act, the person aggrieved against an order made under this Act or Rules thereunder, has to prefer an application within the time specified in this Act or where no such time is specified, within such time as may be prescribed, to the Tribunal for determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to the Wakf. Rule 120 of the Kerala Wakf Rules prescribes the time limit of 30 days for preferring such an application, if not, any other time limit as prescribed under the Act. It is not shown before us that any W.P.(C) No.36781 of 2008 3 other provision in the Act has prescribed the time limit for preferring an application under Section 83(2) of the Act, as far as the present case is concerned. If so, the only provision which will govern the period of Limitation is Rule 120 of the Kerala Wakf Rules. As we have already indicated, it prescribes a period of 30 days and the petitioner could not convince this Court that the application was preferred within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal holding that the application is barred by Limitation. 5. On the merits, it was found that the decision to cut open a road, taken by the general body, was not actuated by mala fides. Since an application under Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act is dismissed as time barred, necessarily, the petitioner cannot invoke the remedies provided under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, since it is not to revive a lost right that such a jurisdiction could be exercised. Even if we consider this writ petition as a revision under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order. W.P.(C) No.36781 of 2008 4 In such circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. nj.