IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 24090 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------------- A.S. MUHAMMADALI, S/O. SAIDU MUHAMMED MASTER, ANSAR MANZIL, MANNANNUR PATOLA, THEKEPOTTA P.O., THEKEPOTTA P.O., PATHUKODU VILLAGE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED SRI.M.ABDUL RASHEED RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKKANCHERI, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKANCHERI, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. M.A. SAINALABDEEN, S/O. M.C. ABDUL RAHMAN @ APPAVU, KARIYAKUNNU, PUTHUKAL VILLAGE & POST. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM FOR R4 SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN FOR R4 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 24090/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE C.E.O., KERALA WAKF BOARD DATED 16.3.2006. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE C.E.O., WAKF BOARD DATED 27.5.2008. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE C.E.O., WAKF BOARD DATED 30.5.2008. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.8760/06 DATED 30.3.2006. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.8760/-6 DATED 6.10.2006. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE C.E.O., WAKF BOARD DATED 29.5.08. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 27.7.07. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 29.7.07. EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE WAKF BOARD DATED 10.7.2008. EXT.P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30.7.08. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R4(a) – TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE WAKF BOARD. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 24090 OF 2008-P ----------------------------------------- Dated 26th August, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner submits, he is the elected Secretary of Putharipadam Mayyathankara Sunni Jama-ath Mahal, situated at Puthucode, Alathur Village, Palakkad district. The election of the petitioner and other office bearers made on 11.12.2005 was approved by the Wakf Board, as evident from Ext.P1 certificate dated 16.3.2006. Since the term of the committee was over, the general body of the Putharipadam Sunni Jama-ath Mahal held on 20.3.2008, elected the very same committee for a further term. The said fact was intimated to the Wakf Board for getting its approval. But, the Wakf Board by Ext.P2 communication, declined to approve the election of the said committee for the reason that it is taking steps to frame a scheme for the administration of the Mahal. Later, notice was served by the Wakf WPC 24090/08 2 Board on the petitioner and others, as per Ext.P3, concerning the proposal to frame a scheme. The petitioner submits, the committee represented by him has filed its views as per Ext.P9 statement, concerning the framing of the scheme. While so, the 4th respondent has formed a committee. The said committee is trying to take over the administration of the Mahal. This is evident from Exts.P7 and P8 hand bills published by the 4th respondent and his supporters. They are trying to physically take over the administration of the Mahal. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P10 representation before the police, seeking necessary protection. Alleging that the police did not take any effective action, this writ petition is filed. The petitioner relies on Ext.P4 interim order passed by this Court in a writ petition filed by him for police protection, on 30.3.2006 and also Ext.P5 judgment, by which the said order was made absolute. He prays, similar orders may be passed in this writ petition also. 2. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, denying the claim of the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner is elected as office bearer of Mayyathankara Juma-ath Palli (Putharipadam Sunni WPC 24090/08 3 Jama-ath) only. Putharippadam Mayyathankara Sunni Jama-ath Mahal consists of 17 Mahals. The petitioner's Mahal is only one of them. The proposed scheme is for the above said congregation of 17 Mahals. The petitioner, who is elected to administer a single Mahal, is trying to administer Putharippadam Mayyathankara Sunni Jama-ath Mahal, consisting of 17 Mahals. So, the claim of the petitioner is unfounded and the police protection may not be extended to him, it is submitted. 3. The learned Government Pleader submitted that for administration of an office, police protection cannot be granted. But, if there is any commission of cognizable offence or breach of peace, the police will take appropriate steps. 4. It is fairly well-settled in law that for administration of an office, police protection cannot be granted. If somebody is raising dispute to the right of the petitioner to hold the office, the remedy of the petitioner in such cases lies before the civil court. The police have no authority or jurisdiction to enquire into the dispute and render protection, based on their finding. The police and other executive functionaries have been kept away from adjudication of the rights of WPC 24090/08 4 the parties under our scheme of administration of justice. Only civil courts can do that. In this jurisdiction, we are concerned only with the failure of duty of the police. Since the police do not have any power or authority to come to the help of the petitioner, when his right to hold the office itself is under challenge. The decision relied on by the petitioner does not lay down any principle, which binds as a precedent. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move the competent civil court/Wakf Tribunal, as the case may be, for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/