IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28276 of 2008(N) --------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ B.M.ABDUL RAHMAN, S/O. MAMMUNHI, RESIDING AT BELLUR, P.O. MOGRAL PUTHUR, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KASARAGOD. ADV. SRI.M.M.SAIDU MUHAMMED,SC,WAKF BOARD FOR R1 R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 28276 OF 2008 N -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd September, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P7 recovery proceedings. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is the President of a Village Mosque Committee. Being a small Village Mosque, it has absolutely no income. Adjacent to the Mosque, there are three old shop rooms which are let out for rent at Rs.100/=each. This is the only income of the Mosque. Every month, the Committee Members contribute share and pay small amounts to the Mukri and Katheeb as remuneration. After meeting day-to-day expenses and annual maintenance, nothing is left as income. The total rental income is only Rs.3,600/= per annum. The expenses of the Mosque are much more than that and it is being conducted only on the charity of the devotees. For meeting urgent necessities, the petitioner had to contribute from out of his pocket. So, there is nothing to be paid as contribution to the Wakf Board. The first WPC.28276/08 N 2 respondent issued Ext.P1 through its Senior Superintendent claiming Rs.64,556/= as contribution towards Wakf Board under Section 72 of the Wakf Act. Petitioner submitted Ext.P2 by which the first respondent was informed that the income is less than Rs.5,000/= and there is no liability for payment of contribution. However, recovery proceedings have been taken realisation of an amount of Rs.67,784/= as evidenced by Ext.P3 revenue recovery notice. That came to be challenged before this Court and this Court dismissed the Writ Petition without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to challenge the impugned order fixing the contribution payable by the petitioner's wakf in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. Subsequently, according to petitioner, petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Wakf Board which passed Ext.P5 stay order and still later set aside the assessment vide Ext.P6 order. By Ext.P6 order, the petitioner was directed to file a fresh Statement of Accounts before the assessing authority within fifteen days of the receipt of Ext.p6 order and WPC.28276/08 N 3 the assessing authority was directed to assess the Statement of Accounts afresh. It was further ordered that failing the same, the original assessment order would prevail. 2. According to learned counsel for petitioner, petitioner had submitted a Statement of Accounts with the very same contentions in Ext.P2 that the only income is Rs.100/= from each of the shop rooms received as rent and the total annual income is only Rs.3,600/= which is less than Rs.5,000/= and there is no liability to pay any contribution. However, it is the complaint of the petitioner that without considering the contentions of the petitioner, the first respondent initiated recovery proceedings for realisation of an amount of Rs.49,672/= as per Ext.P7. It is accordingly that the petitioner challenges Ext.P7. 3. I heard Shri K.V. Sohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri M.M.Saidu Mohammed, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent. Admittedly, there was an order assessing the petitioner in a sum of WPC.28276/08 N 4 Rs.64,556/=. Petitioner had preferred an Appeal and the Wakf Board passed Ext.P6 order, with a direction to the petitioner to file fresh Statement of Accounts within fifteen days of the receipt of a copy of the order and should the petitioner fail to do so, it was specifically ordered that the original order will remain intact. Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner apparently did not submit fresh Statement of Accounts within the period mentioned in Ext.P6. If that is the position, I am of the view that Ext.P6 being a self-working order, the earlier order would revive for the reason that Ext.P6 came to be passed in a statutory appeal and it was specifically ordered that the original assessment would revive if there is omission on the part of the petitioner. Apparently, Ext.P7 has been issued on the strength of Ext.P6 order. If that be so, I fail to see how this Writ Petition challenging the recovery proceedings can be said to lie. If the petitioner is aggrieved, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedies elsewhere. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. But, in order to facilitate the petitioner seeking WPC.28276/08 N 5 appropriate relief, if any, before such Forum as he is advised, the recovery proceedings will be kept in abeyance for a period of one month from today. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge