IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32703 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. S.V.P.POOKKOYA, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O.SYED KOYA, SHAIKKINTE VEEDU PADIPPURA, ANDROTH ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP. 2. S.V.SYED YOUSUF KOYA THANGAL, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIKOYA TAHNGAL, SHAIKKINTE VEEDU, ANDROTH ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP. 3. S.V.SYED MUHAMMED KOYA THANGAL, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.ATTA KOYA THANGAL, SHAIKKINTE VEEDU, ANDROTH ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP. 4. S.V.P.SYED HASSAN THANGAL, AGED 36 YEARS S/O.JAMALUDHEEN THANGAL, SHAIKKINTE VEEDU, ANDROTH ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SMT.VANDANA MENON SMT.ANJU P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. LAKSHADWEEP STATE WAKF BOARD, KAVARATTI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/SECRETARY, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, NEAR DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, SANTHIPATH ROAD, KAVARATTI- 682 553. 2. S.V.CHERIYAKOYA THANGAL, SHAIKKINTE VEEDU, ANDROTH ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP, PIN 682 553. ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C.) No.32703 of 2010 (K) ------------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P3, an order dated 13/10/2010 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the objection raised by the petitioners on the question of jurisdiction of the Wakf Board to entertain the application made by the 2nd respondent for appointment as Muthavalli and Shaik of the Ujra Mosque, Androth Island. 2. Impugning the validity of Ext.P3 order, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the issue relating to the appointment of Muthavalli has already been decided by the Civil Court, and therefore it is not an issue, which can be agitated before the 1st respondent or decided by it. In support of this plea, the learned senior counsel relied on Ext.P7 judgment in W.A.No.359/2010 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court. A reading of the judgment, supports the contention that an issue which is decided by a Civil Court cannot be the subject matter of a WP(C) No.32703/2010 -2- dispute before the 1st respondent. However, a reading of Ext.P9 order of this Court in CRP No.299/2010 filed by the petitioners themselves show that in paragraph 16 of the said order the Division Bench has held that it cannot be disputed that there is no declaration made by the Civil Court as to who should be the Muthavalli and Shaik of the Mosque and as to what should be the method of appointment. In the light of this finding, which is binding on the petitioners, the contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the issue of appointment of Muthavalli is covered by Civil Curt judgment is factually incorrect. If it is an issue which is not covered by the Civil Court judgment, then the Wakf Board is fully competent to adjudicate on such an issue and it has been so held in Ext.P7 judgment referred to above. This reasoning applies fully with respect to the appointment of Shaik also. 3. It was then contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the Wakf Board has no power to make appointments to the post of Muthavalli and therefore the application made by the 2nd respondent was not maintainable. In support of WP(C) No.32703/2010 -3- this contention, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of this Court in Kerala Wakf Board v. Alam Aboobaker Sait (1987(1) KLT 313). However, in paragraphs 15 & 16 of Ext.P9 order in CRP No.299/2010 itself, this contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has already been answered against the petitioners. Further, counsel for the respondents also point out that the judgment in Kerala Wakf Board v. Alam Aboobaker Sait (1987(1) KLT 313) relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners was rendered in the context of Section 42 of the Wakf Act, 1954, which corresponds to Section 63 of the Wakf Act, 1995 providing for temporary arrangement. On this basis, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, rightly contended that this judgment has no relevance in so far as this case is concerned. For these, I do not find any way to accept this contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. 4. In the light of the above, the arguments raised by the petitioners against Ext.P3 order cannot be accepted and are only to be rejected. Therefore, the writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. WP(C) No.32703/2010 -4- It is clarified that the findings herein will not be used to the prejudice of the petitioners in the proceedings pending before the 1st respondent, which shall decide the issues raised, untrammelled by the findings in this judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg