Natural justice was violated as the Wakf Board issued orders without prior notice to the petitioners, necessitating reconsideration of the matter.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioners, who are the respondents in O.P. No.5 of

2024 before the Kerala State Wakf Board (‘Wakf Board’ in short), filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) To call for the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P6 and to quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

(ii) To declare that the process for convening the General Body Meeting, which was adjourned due to lack of quorum on 31.10.2025, shall continue from the stage at which it was adjourned, under the supervision of the Convenor and Returning Officer already appointed by the Wakf Board.

(iii) To direct 5^th and 6^th respondent to continue the process of election by convening the general body of the 2^nd respondent in view of the unanimous decision by parties”.

2. According to the petitioners, they are the Vice President and Secretary, respectively, of the 2^nd respondent, Siyarath Juma Masjid and Madrasa Paripalana Committee (the ‘Committee’, in short), which is an ancient 900-year-old Wakf institution consisting of nearly one thousand families. The petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P6 interim order dated 05.11.2025, passed by the Wakf Board directing immediate elections to the 2^nd respondent Committee. The petitioners contend that Ext.P6 order was obtained by the 4^th respondent by suppressing material facts, despite the Committee having regularly convened meetings under the supervision of the Board- appointed Convenor and Returning Officer and having already initiated the process of convening a valid General Body Meeting. The further case of the petitioners is that the impugned Ext.P6 order imposes an unreasonable financial burden on a financially weak coastal community and derails an already lawful election process.

3. On 05.12.2025, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent Wakf Board was directed to get instructions as to whether Ext.P6 order is one issued without notice to the petitioners.

4. On 08.12.2025, when the writ petition was taken up for consideration, learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, submitted that Ext.P6 order was passed by the Wakf Board after advancing O.P. No.5 of 2024. In the memo filed, there is no endorsement to the effect that notice is given to the learned counsel for the petitioners herein, who are respondents 1 and 2 in that original petition. On 08.12.2025, this Court admitted the writ petition on file. The learned Standing Counsel took notice for the 1^st respondent Wakf Board. Urgent notice was issued through special messenger to respondents 2 to 6. On 08.12.2025, this Court granted an interim stay of the operation and enforcement of Ext.P6 interim order dated 05.11.2025 issued by the Wakf Board pending final disposal of the writ petition, for a period of two weeks.

5. On 15.12.2025, when this writ petition was taken up for consideration, respondents 2 to 4 entered appearance through a counsel, who sought time to get instructions as to whether Ext.P6 interim order is issued without notice to the petitioners.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent Wakf Board and the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4.

7. During the course of arguments, the learned Standing Counsel for the Wakf Board as well as the learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4 fairly conceded that Ext.P6 order was passed by the Wakf Board without notice to the petitioners. Therefore, we find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that natural justice is denied to the petitioners since Ext.P6 order dated 05.11.2025 was passed by the 1