IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 25TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 35398 of 2010(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ CHEMNAD ALIYA ARABIC COLLEGE COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY C.H.MOHAMMED, DARUL ISLAM, CHEMNAD, P.O.PARAVANADUKKAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671317. BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH PULIMOOTTIL SRI.K.DILIP SRI.ROVIN RODRIGUES RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, REGIONAL OFFICE, EROTH CENTRE, BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE-670 001. 2. CANARA BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, JASOOR ROAD, KASARAGOD, PIN-671121. R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN, SC, WAKF BOARD R2 BY ADV. SRI.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN, SC FOR CANARA BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 35398 of 2010 Y ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 14th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is challenging Exts.P8 and P11 assessment orders, stating that they have been passed beyond the powers and competence of the first respondent, Chief Executive Officer, and that they are liable to be intercepted by this Court. It is sated that the concerned authority was not having consistent stand. Reference is made to the different exhibits produced before this Court. Placing reliance on Exts.P3 and P8, the discrepancies in this regard are sought to be highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Pursuant to Ext.P3 order, Ext.P5 has been issued to the petitioner by the bankers informing that the first respondent has demanded payment of a sum of `6,71,372/- which made the petitioner to approach this Court. 2. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing W.P(C) W.P.(C) No.35398/2010 : 2 : No.31198/2010, which culminated in Ext.P6 judgment. There is a specific observation in paragraph 4 of the said verdict that, if the orders of assessment have been finalised, it is open to the petitioner to seek for the statutory remedy under Section 72(7) of the Wakf Act, before the Wakf Board. It was in the said circumstance, that appropriate directions were issued to serve copies of the assessment orders/ revised assessment orders to the petitioner and the petitioner was permitted to prefer statutory appeals within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the assessment orders/ revised assessment orders. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the actual facts and figures have been given in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent. It is stated that the petitioner has not disclosed the full facts and further that the first respondent is the appellate authority. It is pointed out that the petitioner has not chosen to implead the assessing authority, who is the Chief W.P.(C) No.35398/2010 : 3 : Executive Officer, in the party array. 4. This Court does not find it necessary to go into the merits of the case. The apprehension expressed by the petitioner is that there is some overlapping by virtue of the earlier assessment orders and the subsequent assessment orders. It is pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, with reference to Ext.R1(a) produced along with the counter affidavit of the first respondent, that the assessments made in respect of the assessment years as per the earlier assessment orders dated 23-08-2006, 11-11-2009 and 17-02- 2010 would stand cancelled and hence that apprehension is wrong and unfounded. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy as provided under the relevant provisions of the Wakf Act. If any such appeal is filed within a period of 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered and finalised by the first respondent Wakf W.P.(C) No.35398/2010 : 4 : Board in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within three months thereafter. The condition imposed by this Court earlier in Ext.P6 judgment that the petitioner shall not withdraw any further amounts from their account in the Canara Bank, Jasoor Branch, Kasaragod will continue till such time. Sd/- (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge