Administrative orders appointing interim management to ensure the continuity of religious endowments and the conduct of elections, passed after considering representations, are not subject to stay by appellate courts, provided the aggrieved party has alternative legal remedies to challenge the election process.

JUDGMENT :

MURALEE KRISHNA S., J.

1. The applicant in W.O.A.No.214 of 2025 on the file of the Waqf Tribunal, Kozhikode (the ‘Tribunal’ for short) filed this MFA under Section 83(9) of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995 (the ‘Waqf Act’ for short), challenging the order dated 05.02.2026 passed by the Tribunal in I.A.No.2 of 2025 filed by the appellant in that W.O.A.

2. The appellant claims that he is a member of the Mutawalli family of Velliyott Juma-ath Palli Waqf. The 2^nd respondent had previously filed O.S.No.125 of 2022 before the Tribunal seeking a declaration that the election of the 5^th respondent as President of the Velliyot Juma-ath Palli Paripalana Committee was illegal and void. In that suit, the 2^nd respondent further sought for a declaration that he is the Mutawalli of the Waqf property and a consequential injunction. By Annexure A3 judgment dated 13.01.2025, the Tribunal decreed the suit in favour of the 2^nd respondent, finding that the 5^th respondent is not entitled to continue as President of the 3^rd respondent Committee and directed him to quit his Presidentship. The Committee was directed to elect a new President if there had been a further period in the tenure of that Committee. Against Annexure A3 judgment, respondents 3 to 5 approached this Court by filing CRP (WAKF) No.16 of 2025 and vide Annexure A4 order dated 12.08.2025, this Court disposed of that revision petition directing the members of the family of the Mutawalli to submit a request to the Kerala State Waqf Board (the ‘Board’ for short) immediately for holding the election strictly as per the bye-laws, and thereafter the Board in accordance with law, by hearing any affected party if at all deem it appropriate shall promulgate the schedule of election by appointing the Returning Officer. Further, the Board was directed to appoint an interim Mutawalli forthwith, only for a limited period, for the purpose of conducting a smooth election. Subsequently, the appellant submitted Annexure A5 request dated 29.09.2025 before the Board as directed in Annexure A4 order of this Court.

2.1. Meanwhile, the 2^nd respondent had filed O.P.No.611 of 2025 before the Board against the 3^rd respondent Committee and two others with a prayer to conduct an overall enquiry into the administration and management of the Waqf, audit of its accounts, and to initiate proceedings in the event of misappropriation of Waqf funds or alienation of Waqf property. After the submission of Annexure A5 request by the appellant, the 2^nd respondent filed I.A.No.389 of 2025 in O.P.No.611 of 2025 to conduct the election and to appoint an interim Mutawalli. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 had filed their counter statement in the aforesaid I.A. as well as in O.P.No.611 of 2025. The Board thereafter passed Annexure A6 order dated 29.11.2025 in I.A.No.389 of 2025, appointing an interim Mutawalli-cum-Returning Officer till 17.02.2026, purportedly in compliance with the direction of this Court in Annexure A4 order. Challenging Annexure A6 order of the Board, the appellant filed W.O.A.No.214 of 2025 before the Tribunal. In that W.O.A., he filed I.A.No.2 of 2025 under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure to stay Annexure A6 order of the Board. In that I.A., respondent Nos. 3 to 5 supported the appellant, whereas the 2^nd respondent, who is the petitioner in O.P.No.611 of 2025 before the Board, filed a detailed counter, contending that the O.A. as well as the stay petition is not maintainable. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 05.02.2026, dismissed I.A.No.2 of 2025. Being aggrieved, the appellant is now before this Court with this MFA.

3. Heard Shri.R.K.Mu