IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 17985 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THEKKE BAZAAR SA-ABDULLA SA-ADUL HARAMAIN DURGA PARIPALANA COMMITTEE, THEKKE BAZAR, KANNUR REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, P.GAFOOR HAJI, S/O.ABDUL KHALID, AGED 56 YEARS, THEKKE BAZAR, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. S.H.HUSSAIN, S/O.SYED MOHAMMED HUSSAIN, AGED 48 YEARS, NEAR MAKKANI, SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR. 2. SYED CHAND BASHA, S/O.SYED YOUSUF, SUHARA MANZIL, NEAR MAKKANI, SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR. 3. YOUSUF HUSSAIN @ HASHIM, S/O.SYED MOHAMMED HUSSAIN, SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR. 4. K.ABDUL JABBAR, S/O.ABDUL RAZAK, NEAR MAKKANI, SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR. 5. S.MOIDEEN, S/O.SAMAD, NEAR KUHIPALLI, KAKKAD, KANNUR. 6. S.NOORUDHIN, S/O.MOIDEEN, MEHABUBI MANZIL, MOTTAMMAL ROAD, KANNUR. 7. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR. WPC 17985/08 8. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR. 9. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN FOR R2,5&6 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 17985/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE WAKF BOARD IN PETITION 13/82 DATED 7.11.95. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER NO.13/82 OF THE KERALA WAKF BOARD DATED 13.2.01. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.8.03. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.8.03 OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.9.03. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 27.4.04. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO.1514/04 DATED 29.6.04 ON THE FILE OF THE JFCM COURT, KANNUR. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.R.P.NO.36/04 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY DATED 29.1.05. EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRLM.C.NO.2335/05 DATED 5.10.07 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION CMP NO.4445/05 IN CMP NO.1514/04 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JFCM COURT, KANNUR DATED 19.7.05. EXT.P11 - TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 4.8.05 DO. DO. EXT.P12 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO.4716/05 IN CMP NO.1514/04 DTD. 17.3.08 OF THE JFCM COURT, KANNUR. EXT.P13 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 9TH RESPONDENT DATED 2.4.08. EXT.P14 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 21.04.08 DO. DO. EXT.P15 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 16.5.08. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R3(a) - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED ON BEHALF OF UROOS. EXT.R3(b) – TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED POSTER. EXT.R3(c) – TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN SUDINAM DAILY. WPC 17985/08 EXT.R3(d) – TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.05.2008 OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXT.R3(e) – TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE NEW GENERAL ENGINEERING WORKS. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 17985 OF 2008-N ----------------------------------------- Dated 4th August, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is a wakf. The said wakf owns some properties. The Wakf Board, as per Ext.P2 order, approved the draft scheme framed for the administration of that wakf. In terms of that scheme, an election was held and a committee headed by Sri.P.Gafoor Haji, who is representing the petitioner herein, was elected. The said committee could get the records and the keys of the buildings of the wakf from the persons who were managing it earlier, only as per Ext.P12 proceedings dated 17.3.2008. When the new committee started administration of the wakf, the respondents 1 to 6 started causing obstruction. Though they are also members of the wakf, they have no right or authority to interfere in the administration of the wakf, as the same is done by the newly elected committee. It is also submitted that the election of the WPC 17985/2008 2 present committee was approved by the Wakf Board. Because of the obstruction from the part of respondents 1 to 6, the petitioner moved the police, seeking necessary protection for the administration of the wakf. Ext.P14 is the representation filed before the District Superintendent of Police in this regard. Alleging that the police did not take any effective action, this writ petition is filed, seeking the following relief: “(i) issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other Writ or Order, directing the respondents 7 to 9 to accord police protection to the petitioner for the smooth administration and management of the Thekke Bazar Sa-Abdulla Haramain Durga Paripalana committee and its Wakf properties consisting of 2 Durgas, including Sadhusa Majiyul Marmil Durga and also to the life of the petitioner.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 2, 5 and 6. They dispute the right of the petitioner to administer the wakf. According to them, another committee has been elected in the place of the petitioner and that committee is entitled to administer the wakf. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, reiterating its claim to mange the affairs of the wakf. 3. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted WPC 17985/2008 3 that there is no law and order problem, warranting interference by the police. 4. We notice that the prayer of the petitioner is to afford protection for the smooth administration and management of the wakf, in the background of the alleged obstruction caused by respondents 1 to 6. We feel that the proper remedy of the petitioner is to move the competent civil court/Wakf Tribunal for appropriate reliefs. The police cannot be conceded power to adjudicate on the dispute between the petitioner and the party respondents and to render protection according to their decision. While sitting in this jurisdiction, we are concerned only with the failure of duty from the part of the police. While hearing a petition for police protection, this Court cannot act as a civil court adjudicating the private rights of private parties. In view of the above position, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and its right to move other forums for WPC 17985/2008 4 appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/