K. Harilal, J.

1. The petitioners are the respondents in I.A 101/2017 and I.A 103/2017 in OP 122/2017 on the files of the Kerala Waqf Board. This original petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order passed in the aforesaid interlocutory applications by the first respondent/Chief Executive Officer.

2. OP 122/2017 was filed by the third respondent herein, seeking to pass orders declaring that the general body meeting of the first respondent Jama-ath convened on 7.11.2017 and Ext P2 minutes of the said meeting are illegal and the same be declared null and void and to direct the second respondent to convene an urgent general body meeting of the first respondent Jama-ath as proposed to be held on 12.11.2017, under the supervision and control of the observer appointed by the Board and to pass an order restraining the respondents from convening any meeting in the so-called Executive Committee proposed to be held on 7.11.2017 as per Ext P5 and other ancillary reliefs.

3. According to the averments in the original petition No.122/2017, on 1.10.2017 a general body meeting of the members of the Mahal as per Ext P1 bye-law was convened and the general body unanimously resolved to continue the existing committee as such for a further term of one year. But, the executive committee held on 7.10.2017 took a decision to conduct election to office bearers, contrary to the decision taken by the general body meeting held on 1.10.2017. Therefore, the 4th respondent convened a general body meeting on 12.11.2017. There was no election to the executive committee on 7.10.2017. Therefore they sought an order restraining the respondents from conducting the executive meeting called on the basis of Ext P5 notice and to depute the officer for attending the general body meeting to be held on 12.11.2017 called as per Ext P4. With the aforesaid averments they filed the aforementioned interlocutory applications seeking interim reliefs and the Chief Executive Officer passed the impugned order as prayed for.

4. In this writ petition challenging Ext P16 interim order allowing the said prayer, it is averred that a general body meeting was held on 1.10.2017 and the existing members of the erstwhile committee were elected again to the executive committee unanimously. Thereafter, office bearers were elected on 7.10.2017. At that time the 4th respondent insisted for electing him as General Secretary for the next term and the executive committee refused the said request of the 4th respondent. Infuriated by the said refusal of his demand, he walked out of the executive committee meeting with minutes book and thereafter he called another general body meeting on 12.11.2017; but, election to the office bearers was held, after his walkout. According to them, the meeting which is scheduled to be held on 12.11.2017 is in violation of the election held to the posts of office bearers on 7.10.2017. Thus, the question to be considered is whether Ext P16 order passed by the Chief Executive Officer is legally sustainable or not.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

6. Both parties admit that on 1.10.2017 the general body meeting of the Jamaath was held and the members unanimously resolved and allowed the existing committee to continue for a further term of one year. The question in controversy centers around the election to the officer bearers of the executive committee. According to the petitioners, office bearers were elected in the executive meeting held on 7.10.2017. Though, the 4th respondent insisted for electing him as its Secretary, for a further term, the members refused the said request and he walked out of the general body meeting with the minutes book. But according to the respondents, there was no need to conduct election to office bearers as the general body meeting held on 1.10.2017 unanimously allowed the existing committee with office bearers to continue