IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2011 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9030 of 2011(C) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. T.ALAVI, S/O MUHAMMED, THOTTIYIL HOUSE, PUTHOOR,ATTEERI PO, MALAPPURAM PIN 676 505.. 2. U.HAMZA, S/O.ALAVI,ATTEERI PO, PUTHUR, MALAPPURAM PIN 676 505. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SECRETARY,ATTERI MAHALLU JUMA MASJID ATTERI PO,PUTHUR,MALAPPURAM PIN 676 505. 2. KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD,ERNAKULAM KALOOR,KOCHI-17. BY ADV. MR. A.A. ABUL HASSAN, SC, WAKF BOARD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 9030 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 23rd March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners have approached this court mainly seeking for writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to take up Ext. P2 petition and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible in the light of the verdict passed by the Wakf Tribunal . 2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Wakf Board as well. 3. Going by the materials on record it is seen that Ext.P2 petition was preferred by the petitioners before the second respondent and Ext.P1 order was passed thereon on 14.01.2010 observing as follows: “Petition dismissed as nobody is interested in the matter”. It was in the said circumstance, Ext.P1 was subjected to challenge by approaching the Tribunal and Ext. P3 order was passed, whereby the impugned order was set aside, remanding the matter to the second respondent, which is stated as still W.P.(C) No. 9030 OF 2011 2 pending consideration. Hence the writ petition. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Board that there was considerable lapse on the part of the petitioners in espousing the case at the right time, this Court does not intend to give a direction fixing any time limit for disposing the case, but for observing that the matter is to be finalised by the second respondent as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to finalise Ext.P2 in the light of Ext.P3 as expeditiously as possible . The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk