IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10476 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. A.S.MUHAMMEDALI S/O. SAIDUMUHAMMED MASTER, KANNANNOOR PATOLA, THEKKEPOTA PO, PALAKKAD. 2. S.MUHAMMED HASSAN, S/O.P.V.SAIDU MUHAMMED, DARUL SALAM, THEKKEPOTA PO, PALAKKAD. 3. U.SAIDU MUHAMMED GURUKKAL S/O. T.V.UMMARKUTTY GURUKKAL, THEKKEPOTA PO, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. M.K.NAVOOR MEERAN RAWTHER S/O. KHADHIRMEERAN MANAPPADATH HOUSE, MARIAD, PUTHUKODU PO PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. S.MUHAMMED MOOSA S/O.SHEIK MUTHYUDIN RAWTHER, KOLAIKKAD HOUSE MANJAPPRA, ALATHOOR, PALAKKAD. 3. PUTHOKODU JAMA-ATH COMMITTEE PUTHUKODE ALATHUR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, V.A.AHMED. 4. M.A.SAINULABDEEN KARIYAKUNNU, PUTHUKODE PO, PALAKKADU 678 687 5. THE KERALA WAKF BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER VIP ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-17 ADV. SRI.M.M.SAIDU MUHAMMED,SC,WAKF BOARD FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 10476 OF 2009 (D) ===================== Dated this the 31st day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners submit that they are the President, Secretary and Treasurer of Putharipadam Moyyathankara Sunni Jama-ath, Alathur Taluk in Palakkad District. Their grievance is mainly regarding Ext.P6, by which the 4th respondent and others moved the 5th respondent to oust the petitioners from the office which they are holding now. The said application has been filed in a pending proceedings, to which according to the petitioners, the applicants in Ext.P6 are strangers. On receipt of Ext.P6, the 5th respondent issued Ext.P7 notice requiring the petitioners to appear before the 5th respondent. Accordingly, petitioners appeared and filed Ext.P10 objection. It is evident from the pleadings in the case that the matter was heard and the 5th respondent is to render the order on 17/6/2009. In this writ petition what the petitioners apprehend is that without deciding on the maintainability of Ext.P5 filed by the 4th respondent and others, who according to the petitioners are strangers to the proceedings, the 5th respondent may decide the whole issue. WPC 10476/09 :2 : 2. As already stated, the 5th respondent has already heard the parties and it is to render its order on 17/6/2009. If as stated by the petitioners, they have raised a point about the maintainability of the very application itself, there is no reason to think that the 5th respondent will not consider the same and render its order on that issue as well. Now that the 5th respondent is seized of the issue, I do not think a further direction at this stage is called for. 3. Petitioners may produce a copy of this judgment before the 5th respondent. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp