IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 RCRev..No. 61 of 2010() ----------------------- RCA.30/2008 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, TRIVANDRUM RCP.62/2006 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, TVM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------ BABU, S/O. SUBBIAH, TC 15/1745 TAILORING SHOP RAJ KAMAL BUILDINGS OPPOSITE TAGORE THEATRE, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. MANI RAJ GOPAL, W/O.LATE RAJA GOPAL AJITH ,SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. RAJ KUMAR,S/O. LATE RAJ GOPAL AJITH, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2010, ALONG WITH RCR. No. 60 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- CRP. No. 61 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010 O R D E R Abdul Rehim, J. This revision petition is preferred against the judgment and decree in O.A. No. 6 of 2009 on the files of the Wakf Tribunal, Kollam. A decision taken by the 5th respondent Wakf Board on 12-8-2009 to conduct elections to the Council of the first petitioner Jama-ath, by appointing an Advocate Commissioner, was under challenge before the Tribunal. In the impugned judgment, the Wakf Tribunal found that the present committee of the Jama-ath was elected as early as on 27-10-2002 and inspite of the fact that the term of office is for a period of 3 years as provided in the byelaws, the same committee is continuing thereafter. According to the respondents, the General Body Meeting held on 20-8-06 unanimously decided to extent the period of term of office of the present Council, till CRP. 61/10 - 2 - completion of construction of a Mosque viz., “Hameediya Mosque” proposed to be put up in the Jama-ath. But it is found that there is no materials to show that construction of the “Hameediya Mosque” was even started. It is further noticed that on 23-11-2008 a General Body Meeting of the Jama-ath was held and the present office bearers were again allowed to continue till completion of the construction of the Mosque. But 162 members of the Jama-ath have filed a mass petition before the Wakf Board against illegal continuance of the present office bearers in office, even after expiry of the term of the office as early as on 26-10- 2005. The Tribunal noticed that, as per relevant provisions contained in the byelaws of the Jama-ath, the term of office is for three years. It is further noticed that no elections as per terms of the byelaws was ever conducted after 27-10- 2002. Under the above circumstance, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed through the impugned order CRP. 61/10 - 3 - to conduct elections to the Jama-ath. 2. On a perusal of the order of the Wakf Board as well as impugned judgment of the Wakf Tribunal, we find no irregularity or impropriety warranting interference. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners Sri.Sabu Thozhupadan submitted that the revision petitioners have no objection in conducting elections to the council of the Jama-ath in a proper manner. But it is contended that the Wakf Board has taken the decision to conduct elections by appointing an Advocate Commissioner, in a hasty manner, without considering submissions of the revision petitioners. It is also contended that the Advocate who is appointed as Commissioner to conduct elections is a junior lawyer, who may not be able to handle situations emerging out of rival interests of the members of the Jama-ath. But we notice that such an argument was not seen raised before the Tribunal. However, we are of the opinion that with respect CRP. 61/10 - 4 - to the procedure to be followed in the matter of conduct of elections, the revision petitioners can make proper representations before the Advocate Commissioner and we do not find any reason to presume that the Advocate Commissioner will proceed with conduct of elections without considering such representations and without following sound principles of democracy. Under the above circumstance we find the revision petition as devoid of any merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ksv/-