IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 30084 of 2011(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. S.V.P.POOKOYA, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O.SYED KOYA,RESIDING AT SHEIKINTE VEEDU PADIPPURA,ANDROTH ISLAND,LAKSHADWEEP. 2. S.V.SYED YOUSUF KOYA THANGAL,AGED 71 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIKOYA THANGAL, RESIDING AT SHEIKINTE VEEDU ANDROTH ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP ISLAND. 3. S.V.SYED MUHAMMED KOYA THANGAL,AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.ATTAKOYA THANGAL, RESIDING AT SHEIKINTE VEEDU,.ANDROTH ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP ISLAND. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. LAKSHADWEEP STATE WAKF BOARD,KAVARATTI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/ SECRETARY, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, NEAR DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, SANTHIPATH ROAD, KAVARATTI LAKSHADWEEP ISLAND 682 553. 2. U.CHERIYAKOYA THANGAL,CHAIRMAN, LAKSHADWEEP STATE WAKF BOARD ,KAVARATTI, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, NEAR DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, SANTHIPATH ROAD,KAVARATTI LAKSHADWEEP ISLAND- 682 551. 3. C.G.MOHAMMEDKOYA,MEMBER, LAKSHADWEEP STATE WAKF BOARD ,KAVARATTI, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, NEAR DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT,SANTHIPATH ROAD, KAVARATTI LAKSHADWEEP ISLAND - 682 551. R1 BY ADV. SRI. S.RADHAKRISHNAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.30084/2011 I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 13/10/2010. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT IN WPC 9328/2011. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 9328/2011. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF THE WAKF BOARD. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE TWO MEMBER ENQUIRY COMMISSION. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE IST RESPONDENT ON 24/10/11. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 30084 of 2011 I ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 11th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ext.P3 is a judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.9328/2011 filed by the petitioners. The controversy in that writ petition and in this writ petition pertains to the proceedings in W.C.No.1/2010 on the file of the first respondent. In that writ petition, this Court issued the following directions:- “4. Taking note of the grievance of both sides, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (i) That the Committee of which the third respondent also is a member, is directed to make its report pursuant to Ext.P1 as expeditiously as possible at any rate within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (ii) It is also directed that once the report is made as above, the first W.P.(C) No.30084/2011 : 2 : respondent shall finalise the proceedings in W.C.No.1/2010 with notice to the parties concerned. This shall be done at any rate within 4 weeks thereafter.” 2. It appears that, in pursuance to the said directions, Ext.P7 report has now been submitted by the Committee, consisting of respondents 2 and 3. On receipt of Ext.P7, first respondent has issued Ext.P4 notice and, overruling the objections filed by the petitioner, Ext.P6 order has been passed. Thereafter, Ext.P8 proceedings have been issued posting W.C.No.1/2010 for final hearing to 15.11.2011. It is at that stage, the petitioners, who are also parties to the aforesaid proceedings before the first respondent, have filed this writ petition, contending that respondents 2 and 3 were appointed by the first respondent to submit a report in terms of Section 71 of the Wakf Act and that Ext.P7 is only a statement enclosing the evidence collected by them and is not a report as contemplated in the said Section. On this basis, prayer sought in the writ petition is to direct respondents 2 W.P.(C) No.30084/2011 : 3 : and 3, the Enquiry Commission appointed by the first respondent to submit a report in terms of Section 71 of the Act and as directed in Ext.P3 judgment. Further prayer sought is to direct the first respondent to take a decision in W.C.No.1/2010 on the basis of the report to be so submitted. 3. It is true that in Ext.P3 judgment, this Court directed that a report shall be submitted and the first respondent was directed to take decision in W.C.No.1/2010 on the basis of such a report and it is accordingly that Ext.P7 has been submitted. In my view, once Ext.P7 report is submitted, it is for the first respondent to consider the adequacy or otherwise of the report and ultimately, if for some reason, a wrong decision is taken by the first respondent acting upon the report, it is up to the aggrieved party to challenge the decision so taken at that stage. Therefore, the writ petition filed at this stage when the first respondent is ceased of the proceedings, is premature and misconceived and this Court will not be justified in issuing any orders as W.P.(C) No.30084/2011 : 4 : sought for. 4. Petitioners say that, since the proceedings are now posted to 15.11.2011, due to paucity of time, the first respondent may be directed to defer final hearing to a future date. This is a request which the petitioners will have to make before the first respondent and it is for the first respondent to deal with the same in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/11/11 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge