IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2010 / 22ND ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31198 of 2010(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- CHEMNAD ALIYA ARABIC COLLEGE COMMITTEE, REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, C.H.MOHAMMED, DARUL ISLAM, CHEMNAD, P.O.PARAVANADUKKAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 317. BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.SOHAN, SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD, KOZHIKODE, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, REGIONAL OFFICE, EROTH CENTRE, BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE-670 001. 2. CANARA BANK, REP. BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, JASOOR ROAD, KASARAGOD, PIN-671 121. R1 BY SRI. A.A. ABUL HASSAN, S.C, WAKF BOARD, R2 BY SRI. P. GOPINATH MENON, S.C, CANARA BANK, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 31198 of 2010 Y ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 14th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5, a communication received from the Canara Bank informing that the first respondent Board has demanded payment of an amount of Rs.6,71,372/- and that the same will be paid over to the Board. 2. Case of the petitioner is that the first respondent had issued Ext.P3 order of assessment, which was objected by the petitioner. It is stated that thereafter they were issued Ext.P4 notice and that they are contesting the matter before the Board. It is stated that while the matter is thus pending, the Board has issued instructions to the Bank to pay the amounts due as per the assessment order. On this basis, it is stated that the demand made by the Board as evidenced by Ext.P5 is premature and illegal. 3. However, Standing Counsel for the first respondent WPC.31198/10 : 2 : Board, on instructions, submits that the assessment orders and best judgment assessment orders were issued against the petitioner and with notice to them. It is stated that finally they were issued demand for a sum of Rs.6,72,000/- and that though notice was issued, there is no response from the petitioner. It is in these circumstances, finally, the Board demanded Rs.6,71,372/- from the Bank of the petitioner. Counsel, therefore, contends that demand made by the first respondent is in exercise of powers under Section 73 of the Wakf Act and that contentions of the petitioner are liable to be rejected. 4. If as stated by the first respondent, orders of assessment have been finalised, certainly, it is open to the petitioner to seek statutory remedy under Section 72(7) of the Wakf Act before the Board. In view of the statutory remedy thus available to the petitioner, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:- It will be open to the petitioner to get copies of the WPC.31198/10 : 3 : assessment orders and best judgment assessment orders passed by the first respondent against the petitioner, on the production of a copy of this judgment before the first respondent. On obtaining orders as above, it will be open to the petitioner to seek their remedy under Section 72(7) of the Wakf Act, which they should seek, at any rate, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the assessment and revised assessment orders. 5. In the meantime, the first respondent shall not realise the amount mentioned in Ext.P5 which is demanded from the Bank. It is also directed that the petitioner shall not withdraw any further amounts from their account in the Canara bank, Jasoor Branch, Kasaragod. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge