IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28012 of 2008(I)
1. V.P.MUHAMMED ALIAS MANUTTI, AGED 66
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE RETURNING OFFICER OF KERALA STATE
... Respondent
2. THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD,
3. MANNAKKAL JUMA MASJID MAHAL COMMITTEE,
4. PUTHUKUDY ABOOBACKER, PUTHUKUDY,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.FIROZ
For Respondent :SRI.M.M.SAIDU MUHAMMED,SC,WAKF BOARD
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :16/10/2008
O R D E R
V. GIRI, J.
-------------------------------
WP(C).No. 28012/2008
---------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner claims to be the Muthavalli of Moonnakkal
Juma-ath palli, a registered Wakf. According to the petitioner,
as per the Wakf register one V.P.Kuhi Pocku is shown as the
Muthavalli. Subsequently, the petitioner’s brother Hurair Kutty
was recognised as Muthavalli. According to the petitioner, he
later succeeded on the death of the Muthavalli. The petitioner
submits that an election to the Wakf Board has been notified
under section 14 of the Wakf Act. The Muthavallis of the Wakfs
in the State constitute the electoral college. The petitioner’s
grievance is that his name is not included in the voters list
published by the first respondent. An objection submitted by
him has not been considered, according to him. But by Ext.P3,
a non speaking order, the complaint has been rejected. The
same has been challenged.
2. By order dated 25.9.2008, I directed the Standing
Counsel for the Wakf Board to file a statement indicating
WPC. 28012/2008 2
whether the order impugned in the writ petition can be the
subject matter of an election dispute. A statement has been
filed. Para 1 of the same reads as follows:
” In the above case, the petitioner
challenges the order of the Returning Officer
declining the petitioner’s request to include
his name in the Electoral Roll of the Electoral
College of Muthawalli and the inclusion of the
name of the 4th respondent. It is submitted
that Rule 55 of the Kerala Wakf Rules
provides for redressal of election disputes.
The complaint of the petitioner is to be
agitated as an election dispute in an Election
petition to be filed before the Wakf Tribunal
as per Rule 55 of the Kerala Wakf Rules.”
3. Election disputes are normally to be agitated only in the
manner which is provided in the statute which governs the
election. Since the Wakf Board which conducts election has
itself accepted that the claim made by the petitioner or objection
raised by him in relation to respondents 3 and 4 can be
adjudicated as an election dispute in terms of Rule 55 of the
Kerala Wakf Rules, I do not think it is appropriate to consider
WPC. 28012/2008 3
the case of the petitioner on merits in proceedings under Article
226 of the constitution. Accordingly recording the stand taken by
the first respondent, the writ petition is disposed of holding that
the dispute raised by the petitioner and the claim pursued by
him is a matter which can be urged as election dispute under
section 55 of the Kerala Wakf Rules.
V. GIRI, JUDGE.
Pmn/ WPC. 28012/2008 4