IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 30TH AUGUST 2010 / 8TH BHADRA 1932 CRP.No. 414 of 2010() ---------------------------- WOA.4/2010 DATED 14/05/2010 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPLICANT ---------------------------------------------------- KALAMASSERY NJALAKAM MUSLIM, JAMATH, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, KOCHI-33, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, N.M.KUNJU MOHAMMED, RESIDING AT NEERUNGAL HOUSE, KARIPPAYI ROAD, RAJAGIRI P.O., SOUTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM-683104. BY ADV. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN SRI.M.N.MANMADAN SMT.KALA G.NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, VIP ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-17, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 2. DR.MOHAMMED ALI, PALLATH HOUSE, H.NO.383/24, VIDYANAGAR ROAD, COCHIN UNIVERSITY POST. R1 SRI.A.A.ABDUL HASSAN R2 BY ADVS. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH, SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU, SRI.JAGAN GEORGE, SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD, SRI.P.G.PRAMOD, SRI.KANDAMPULLY RAHUL. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: KL. Pius C.Kuriakose & P.S.Gopinathan, JJ. ============================================ C.R.P.No.414 of 2010 ============================================ Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010. ORDER Gopinathan, J. 1.The revision petitioner, the Kalamassery Njalakam Muslim Jama-ath, is a public trust governed by a bye-law dated 22.4.2010, copy of which is produced before us. The second respondent, an Orthopedic Surgeon, who migrated from Manjummal juma-ath to the territorial limits of the revision petitioner, applied for an ordinary membership as per Clause 4(b) of the bye-law. The revision petitioner declined the request for reasons best known to them. The second respondent preferred application before the first respondent. The first respondent, after due enquiry, by its proceedings dated 15.12.2009, directed the revision petitioner to issue CRP414/10 -:2:- membership on condition that the second respondent gives an undertaking in writing declaring his allegiance to the existing bye law of the revision petitioner Jama-ath. Revision petitioner assailed the same before the Wakf Tribunal, Ernakulam in W.O.A.4/10. By judgment dated 14.5.2010, the Wakf Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner. Assailing that judgment, this revision petition was filed. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the respondent. 2.Bye-law 4(B) mandates that a person following Islam faith migrating from territorial limits of another Jama-ath shall apply and get a membership of the revision petitioner Jama-ath. It is in CRP414/10 -:3:- compliance of that provision, the second respondent applied for membership. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the second respondent is following an ideology different from the ideology followed by the revision petitioner. Regarding the ideology followed by either side, there is no material available on record. However, the learned counsel could not bring out any material to show that the second respondent is following any ideology, which is contrary to or in conflict with the bye-laws or that the second respondent is in any way disqualified for getting a membership to the revision petitioner Jama-ath. From the impugned judgment it is seen that the revision petitioner had taken a contention that the second respondent is moving through the path CRP414/10 -:4:- of extremism. For want of supporting material, the Tribunal rejected the contention. We find that this is a right decision. Before us no such contention was taken. It is not disputed that the right of membership is not at the whims and fancies of the office bearers. Office bearers have no authority to pick and choose between believers. They are not empowered to deny membership without assigning good reasons. Since the revision petitioner could not give any reason to reject the membership to the second respondent, the Wakf Board as well as the Tribunal is correct in directing the revision petitioner to give membership to the second respondent. Though various grounds are raised in the memorandum of revision, we fail to find any reason, which dis-entitle or disqualify the CRP414/10 -:5:- second respondent to get membership in the revision petitioner Juma-ath. In the above circumstances, we find no good reason to interfere with the order impugned. Revision petitioner has not at all succeeded to establish any irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the order impugned. The revision petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly it is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Pius C.Kuriakose, Judge. P.S.Gopinathan, Judge. sl.