IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1932 CRP.No. 69 of 2010() -------------------- WOA.10/2009 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------- T.K.UBAIDU, S/O.KUNJIRALI,PONNATH HOUSE SECRETARY, PUNMANIKUDAM MUHIYUDDIN JAMA-ATH MG.COMMITTEE, PERINJANAM PO,KODUNGALLOOR. BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ SRI.M.ISHA SRI.B.AMANULLA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & WAKF BOARD: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. R.B.HYDROSE UNNI,S/O.LATE BEERAN, RAYANMARAKKAR HOUSE, PERINJANAM P PERINJANAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR. 2. K.K.ABDUL SHUKKOOR, S/O.KUNJUMOIDEEN KUTTY, KALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERINJANAM PO, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR. 3. KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,VIP ROAD KALOOR, KOCHI-17. ADV. SRI.M.M.SAIDU MUHAMMED,SC,WAKF BOARD FOR R2 SRI.SABU THOZHUPPADAN FOR R2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ C. R. P. No.69 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act is the order passed by the Wakf Tribunal, Ernakulam in I.A.170/09 in W.O.A. No.10/09 vacating the interim stay which had been initially granted against conduct of election by the Wakf Tribunal. The order impugned before the Wakf Tribunal was Annexure-R5 order of the State Wakf Board. Sri.T.H. Abdul Azeez, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that Annexure-R5 order was per se erroneous as such an order should not have been passed on the very first C. R. P. No.69 of 2010 -2- hearing date of the case without hearing the parties. Annexure-R5 order is a non-speaking order. According to Sri.Azeez, the petitioner has an excellent case in the WOA and hence, the impugned order vacating the stay should not have been passed as the same amounts to rendering the WOA infructuous. Sri.A.A.Abul Hassan, the learned Standing Counsel for the Wakf Board, however, would justify Annexure-R5. He submitted that the WOA itself stands presently dismissed for default. Hence, virtually, the CRP is also to be treated as having become infructuous. Sri.Azeez would reply that application has been readily filed for restoring of the WOA. 2. Having considered the submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that the CRP can be disposed of issuing the following C. R. P. No.69 of 2010 -3- directions:- If an application is already filed for restoration of the WOA.10/09 before the learned Wakf Tribunal, the learned Tribunal will pass early orders on that application. If that application comes to be allowed, the learned Tribunal shall dispose of the WOA in accordance with law at the earliest and while disposing of the WOA the Tribunal should not be influenced by any finding entered by the Tribunal in the impugned order in I.A.170/09. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. S. GOPINATHAN JUDGE kns/-