IMPORTANT POINTS
Quasi-judicial function of the Board is not delegable even under Section 27 of the Act, it can only hold that in respect of lis calling for exercise quasi-judicial function, the CEO is not clothed any power to pass any order on the ground that the Board is not in session. Simultaneous exercise such quasi-judicial function in respect of a lis, based on materials made available, by the Waqf Board and CEO is not contemplated by the Waqf Act and the repository of the power in such matters is only the Waqf Board.

JUDGMENT :

C.T.Ravikumar, J.

The question arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Chief Executive Officer (for short 'the CEO') of the Waqf Board whose powers are specified under various provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995 (for short 'the Act') is empowered to deal with and decide any matter or issue involved in a petition pending consideration before the Waqf Board, even if it is for the purpose of granting an interim relief or order? For a proper consideration of the said issues and to answer the aforesaid question, it is only appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions under the Act delineating the powers of the Waqf Board and the CEO. The said question emerged for consideration from the facts stated infra.

2. Respondents 3 to 9 herein filed O.P.No.93 of 2016 before the Kerala State Waqf Board, Ernakulam. It is still pending consideration. The writ petitioners herein are the respondents therein. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereafter in this judgment, in accordance with their status and rank, in this writ petition. Respondents 3 to 9 herein filed the said original petition seeking the following reliefs:-

(a) To direct the respondents to register the Waqf or take steps for suo moto registration of the Waqf under the Waqf Act.

(b) To prosecute the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for the failure to register the Waqf to conceal the existence of the Waqf.

(c) To Audit the accounts of the respondents committee for the last 6 years.

(d) To frame a scheme for the administration of the respondent Waqf.

(e) To appoint an Advocate Commissioner to conduct an election to the office bears of the respondents committee as per the bye law.

(f) To direct the respondents to pay the cost of this case, and

(g) To allow other reliefs which is arising during the trial of this case.”

3. As per order dated 1.3.2016 in O.P.No.93 of 2016, the second respondent, the Waqf Board directed to audit the accounts of the Waqf. After passing such an order on 1.3.2016, the 2nd respondent posted the matter to 19.07.2017 as per its proceedings dated 9.5.2017. Before the said posting date, when the Board was not in session, respondents 3 to 9 herein moved I.A.Nos.74/2017 and 75/2017 before the 1st respondent, the Chief Executive Officer of the 2nd respondent -Waqf Board. I.A.No.74/2017 was filed with a prayer to number the interlocutory application emergently (evidently, I.A.No.75/2017 which was not then numbered) and to hear the matter by the Executive Officer by using the power of the Waqf Board since the Waqf Board was not in session. The IA referred to in IA.No.74/2017 which was sought to be numbered and taken up for hearing carried a prayer to restrain the writ petitioners from conducting a general body on 2.7.2017 or later for electing new office bearers to the respondent committee and from conducting election to the Working Committee until O.P.No.93/2016 is finally disposed. Obviously, the 1st respondent, the Chief Executive Officer, after numbering the application referred to therein as I.A.No.75/2017, proceeded to consider the matter and then passed an order on 29.06.2017 in the said I.A. in O.P.No.93/2016. In fact, the prayer in I.A.No.75/2017 was allowed to certain extent. The specific case of the writ petitioners is that copies of I.A.Nos.74/2017 and 75/2017 were not served on them. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court the copies of the said interlocutory applications were produced along with a memo by the Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent -Waqf Board. From the copy of the I.A.No.74/2017 in O.P.No.93/2016 produced along with a memo, it is evident that on 29.06.2017 an order was passed on I.A.No.74/2017 by the Chief Executive Officer. Before referring to that order, it is only profitable to extract the prayer made in I.A.No.74/2017, by respondents 3 to 9 herein and it reads thus:-

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Board may be place to n