IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 WA.No. 359 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.1071/2010 Dated 17/02/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 ----------------------- 1. S.V.P.POOKOYA,S/O.SAYED KOYA, AGED 72 YEARS,SHAIKINTE VEEDU PADIPPURA,ANDROTT, LAKSHADWEEP. 2. SYED FATHAHULLA THANGAL,S/O.MONAPURA KOYAMMAKOYA THANGAL,AGED 68 YEARS,SHAIKINTE VEEDU, ANDROTT,LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SMT.VANDANA MENON SMT.ANJU P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): (PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2) ------------------------- 1. S.V.CHERIYAKOYA THANGAL, S/O.U.P.LKOYAMMAKOYA THANGAL,AGED 50 YEARS, SHAIKINTE VEEDU,ANDROTT,LAKSHADWEEP. 2. LAKSHADWEEP STATE WAKF BOARD, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP,SHANTIPATH ROAD, KAVARATTI-682 555,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE ADMINISTRATOR,UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP,KAVARATTI. BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN FOR R2&3 BY ADV.M/S. SHYAM PADMAN, (R1) RANJITH NARAYANAN(R1) M.LISHA - (R1) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN, Ag.C.J. & C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- W.A.No.359 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Raman, Ag.C.J. Respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition are the appellants. The writ petition was filed for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P7 and Ext.P18 representations filed by the first respondent herein. The dispute between the parties were the subject matter of adjudication in a civil suit, which culminated in Ext.P16 final judgment rendered by this Court in S.A.No.698 of 1999. According to the first respondent, the issue as to whether who should be the Muthavally has not been decided by the Civil court. But the according to the appellants, this issued has been decided. Any way, the learned Single Judge only directed the representation to be disposed of, after hearing all parties, against which the present appeal is filed. WA.No.359/2010 2 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the present attempt is only to unsettle the position as decided by the Civil Court and the Wakf Board has no jurisdiction to unsettle such decision governed by the judgment inter parties. We find force in the said contention. But whether or not any issued is left open, and whether the Wakf Board has got jurisdiction is still a matter which the appellants can raise before the Wakf Board. Since there is already a final judgment rendered by this Court in S.A.No.698 of 1999, wherein also Wakf Board is a party, it has to be observed that said decision is binding on everybody including the Wakf Board. However, if there is any issue left out by the Civil Court, then that is a matter which the Wakf Board will have to consider and decide, after hearing both sides, subject to its jurisdiction. Such decision shall, however, be consistent with the decision rendered by this Court in S.A.No.698 of 1999. WA.No.359/2010 3 In the above circumstances, the writ appeal is disposed of, subject to the clarification, as stated above. P.R.RAMAN, Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE nj.