IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36396 of 2010(Y) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- BOARD OF MANAGEMENT KOTTILKULAM MUSLIM JAMA-ATH REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY (SECRETARY IN CHARGE) A.M.IBRAHIM BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS SMT.P.K.PRIYA SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN SRI.K.M.HASHIR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KALOOR,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ABDUL HASSAN, SC, WAKF B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 36396 of 2010 Y ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Exts.P2 to P5, best judgment assessments of the contribution due from the petitioner to the respondent. Although statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed, on the ground that the assessment orders have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. According to the petitioner, they were not given notice before issuing the aforesaid orders. This contention raised is primarily on the ground that there was change of office bearers and that such change was communicated to the respondent as per Ext.P1. It is stated that despite the above, notice was not issued and that the order was passed without opportunity to them. 3. However, learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, submits that Ext.P1 was not communicated to the W.P.(C) No.36396/10 : 2 : Wakf Board and that before issuing Exts.P2 and P5, the Wakf Board had issued notices to the office bearers as per their records. 4. Petitioner has not produced anything to prove their contention that Ext.P1 was communicated to the Wakf Board. If that be so, prima facie, the submission that notice was not issued to the petitioner despite having communicated Ext.P1 cannot be accepted. 5. In such circumstances, petitioner will have to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal that is available and with that liberty, I close this writ petition. It is directed that if the petitioner files appeal within one month from today, the same will be entertained and disposed of on merits. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge