Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 9069
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
MOHAMMED P., HARIS P. – Appellant
Versus
THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 28390 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL, SHRI.ISTINAF ABDULLAH, SRI.P.ABDUL NISHAD, SRI.SUBRAHMANIAN T., SMT.THASNEEM A.P., SMT.ANUPAMA R. NAIR
For the Respondents: DR.V.N.SANKARJEE, SHRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN, SMT. KEERTHI B. CHANDRAN, SHRI.VIJAYAN PILLAI P.K., SMT.R.UDAYA JYOTHI, SMT.SHILPA P.S., SHRI.UNNIKRISHNAN H., SHRI.ASWIN P.S., SMT.SHRIYA MERLIN MAXWELL, SRI. JAMSHEED HAFIZ, SC, WAQF BOARD
Compliance with Wakf regulations is essential, and directives from the Board must be adhered to without delay to ensure proper management.
Headnote:The court assessed the implementation of Ext.P3 order of the Kerala State Wakf Board concerning the management of a Wakf and concluded that adequate steps were not taken by the respondents to fulfill the directives within the established timeframe. The petitioners sought actionable resolutions through various writs pertaining to the enforcement of the Board’s order. Crucially, the court mandated compliance by the 4th respondent in a prescribed timeline to address the management lapses and complete pending audits. The court’s judgment emphasized the necessity of proper adherence to Wakf regulations alongside the autonomy of the Wakf Board to deliberate on subsequent issues.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek various writs for implementing wakf board directives. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the implemented order and the need for compliance. (Para 4) |
| 3. assessment by the court on management and audit precedents. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. final judgment directing compliance with specified orders. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The petitioners filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: “a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 4 to implement Ext.P3 order, within a time stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.
b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent Wakf Board to appoint an Administrator to call the general body of 5th respondent Mahallu Committee and to elect the Managing Committee to manage the Wakf as per Ext.P2 bye-law of the society.
c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 complaint filed by the petitioners, within a time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court”.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite Ext.P3 order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the 1st respondent Kerala State Wakf Board (‘Wakf Board’ for short), the same is so far not implemented by the 4th respondent Divisional Officer of the Wakf Board. The petitioners plead that they are the general body members of the 5th respondent Mahallu Committee. No proper general body meeting of the Committee as per the bye-law of the Society was held since 2016. Without conducting a general body meeting, respondents 6 and 10 are managing the Wakf without any authority. Under those circumstances the 2nd petitioner and another filed O.P.No.331 of 2022 before the Wakf Board, in which Ext.P3 order was passed by the Wakf Board directing the 4th respondent Divisional Officer, to verify the audit report, seek necessary explanation in audit objection if any and to recover the amount, if any, due from any person. The Wakf Board further directed the 4th respondent to take steps for including all the properties belonging to the above Wakf in the Wakf register. However, the said order is not implemented by the 4th respondent, so also no steps have been taken by respondents 1 to 3 to implement the order. The petitioners, therefore, preferred Ext.P5 complaint dated 10.04.2025 before the 1st respondent Wakf Board to take steps to implement Ext.P3 order. On submitting that complaint, the petitioners were informed that they should file the complaint before the 3rd respondent Divisional Officer. Therefore, the petitioners sent a copy of Ext.P5 complaint to respondents 3 and 4 also by registered post. Even after Ext.P5 complaint, the respondents 6 to 10 are continuing the mismanagement without any proper election. Hence, the petitioners filed the writ petition.
3. The 6th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated
30.09.2025 on behalf of the respondents 5 to 10, producing therewith Exts.R5(a) to R5(g) documents. To that counter affidavit, the petitioners filed a reply affidavit dated 11.01.2026, producing therewith Exts.P7 to P9 documents. Again, on behalf of respondents 5 to 10, the 6threspondent filed an additional counter affidavit dated 30.01.2026, producing therewith Ext.R5(h) document.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the Wakf Board and the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 10.
5. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that the date of the General Body Meeting in Ext.R5(d) list of members participated in the general body of the Committee is a manipulation on the part of respondents 5 to 10. In fact, the date of general body meeting held on 21.02.2016 was overwritten as 31.05.2016 in that document. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 10 woul
