Interference with the tribunal's stay order is unnecessary as the case is set for final hearing, emphasizing prompt resolution.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The 3^rd respondent in W.O.A. No.14 of 2025 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode, (the ‘Tribunal’, in short) filed this M.F.A. (Wakf) challenging the order dated 13.03.2025 passed by the Tribunal in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in that W.O.A.

2. W.O.A. No.14 of 2025 was filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein challenging Annexure A2 order dated 06.02.2025 issued by the 5^th respondent Divisional Wakf Officer of the Kerala State Wakf Board ( the ‘Board’, in short). Respondents 1 to 3 have also filed I.A.No. 1 of 2025 in that W.O.A. for staying Annexure A2 order till the disposal of the W.O.A. By the impugned order dated 13.03.2025, the Tribunal allowed I.A.No.1 of 2025, staying the operation of Annexure A2 order. Being aggrieved, the 3^rd respondent filed this M.F.A.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel for the Board.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is the President of the 1^st respondent Jama-ath elected as per the direction of this Court in O.P.(Wakf) No.31 of 2022 and the attempt of respondents 1 to 3 to remove him from the said post is stayed by the Board as per Annexure A1 order dated 09.01.2025 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.P. No.8 of 2025. However, it is without challenging Annexure A1 order, the respondents 1 to 3 filed the W.O.A. The net result of the impugned order is the staying of Annexure A1 order, which is not under challenge in the W.O.A.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the W.O.A. itself is posted for final hearing before the Tribunal on 28.11.2025. The order under challenge in this M.F.A. was passed on 13.03.2025. The appellant approached this Court after a long delay, only to protract the W.O.A.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board supported the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant.

7. According to the appellant, it is as directed in O.P.(Wakf)No.31 of 2022, Annexure A2 order was passed by the Divisional Wakf Officer. Unless and until Annexure A2 order was not challenged, the appellant is entitled to continue as the President of the Jama-ath. W.P.(C)No.3080 of 2025, previously filed by respondents 1 to 3, was withdrawn seeking liberty to challenge Annexure A1 order before the Tribunal.

8. The impugned order was passed on 13.03.2025. The appellant filed this M.F.A., with a delay of 83 days, and the same was condoned as per the order dated 11.11.2025 in C.M.Application No.01 of 2025. From the submissions made at the Bar, we notice that the W.O.A. itself is now posted for final hearing on 28.11.2025 before the Tribunal. In such circumstances, we are of the view that interfering with the order under challenge at this stage will delay the disposal of the W.O.A. While considering the delay on the part of the appellant in filing this M.F.A., and the present stage of the W.O.A., we are of the opinion that there is no necessity to interfere with the impugned order of stay passed by the Tribunal, and on the other hand, the Tribunal can be directed to dispose of the W.O.A. itself on merits.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, without expressing anything on the legal and factual contentions raised by the parties, this M.F.A. (Wakf) is disposed of, directing the Tribunal to dispose of W.O.A.No.14 of 2025 itself on merits, expeditiously, taking note of the urgency pointed out by the appellant.