Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 44948
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.HEMA, P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ
ABDUL LATHEEF – Appellant
Versus
K.P ABDURAHIMAN – Respondent
CRP(WAKF) 450 2012
SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ, SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN [CAVEATOR], SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN, SC, WAKF BOARD
Strict adherence to procedural fairness necessitates consideration of all evidence presented before rendering a decision.
Headnote:
Wakf - Administrative Rights - Wakf Act 1995 Section 83(9) - The court found that the tribunal failed to consider vital documents presented by the petitioners, rendering its order invalid and necessitating a detailed examination of the case merits.
Fact of the Case:
A suit was filed seeking a permanent injunction against alleged interference in the administration of a wakf. The first respondent claimed the position of mutawalli based on a partition deed, while petitioners argued they were the rightful committee elected to administer the wakf.
Issues: Whether the tribunal's order, which did not consider submitted documents, could be upheld, and the appropriateness of a permanent injunction in this context.
Ratio Decidendi: An order that fails to consider relevant documentary evidence cannot stand, as it lacks a basis for legal conclusions derived from the facts.
Final Decision: The petition is allowed; the tribunal's order is set aside and the case is to be heard on merits.
O R D E R
Gopinathan,J.
This revision petition under Section 83 (9) of the Wakf Act , 1995 is filed by respondents 1 to 4 in I.A No.514/2012 in O.S No.30/12 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode. First respondent preferred the above suit before the Tribunal seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with the administration of wakf by the 1st respondent as mutawalli with a pleading that as per partition deed No.422/1945 he was nominated as Mutawalli of the Puzhakkara Kammadath Juma Masjid and has been acting so and that the petitioners who are defendants 1 to 4, had been attempting to interfere with the administration of the mosque, for which they have no manner of right and that the 1st respondent is not in a position to resist the high handed activities of the petitioners.
2. Along with the suit, I.A No.514/2012 was filed seeking an order of ad-interim injunction. The Tribunal having satisfied with a prima facie case granted an order of ad-interim injunction and notice was ordered to the petitioners. Petitioners entered appearance and filed a detailed,counter,inter alia contending that the 1st respondent relinquished the mutawalliship to the General Body of the Mahal which elected a committee and that the petitioners as elected committee members have been discharging the functions of the Mutawalli since 1980 and that the 1st respondent aged 89 years was sick and bed-ridden and that the son of the 1st respondent Subair had been trying to interfere with the administration of the wakf by the petitioners and that the suit and the petition for injunction were filed without bona fides and prayed for dismissal of the petition. In support of the pleadings, 22 documents were produced.
3. The Tribunal heard either side and by the impugned order made the interim injunction absolute. Assailing the above order, this revision petition is preferred.
4. We have heard the learned counsel on either side.
5. The main grievance of the learned counsel for revision petitioners is that though the petitioners had produced 22 documents neither the documents were marked nor looked into any of the documents while passing the impugned order against the revision petitioners. The list of the documents was also produced in open court. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent fairly conceded that petitioners had produced documents. But his contention is that many of the documents are copies and not admissible in evidence.
6. We are not expressing any opinion on the contentions raised by the respondents on the merit of the documents produced because the Tribunal which ought to have considered the documents did not consider any of the documents. In the impugned order there is no mention about any of the documents produced by the petitioners. When the documents were relied upon by the parties, it was for the Tribunal to consider the contentions raised by the petitioners with reference to the documents produced and to pass orders on merits. An order passed without considering the documents produced can never be treated as an order on merits. In the above circumstances, we are at dark as to what basis the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion, against the revision petitioners. Therefore, the order impugned is vitiated and liable to be set aside. We find that the matter requires a detailed consideration by the Tribunal on merits in the light of the documents produced by the petitioners.
7. Learned counsel for 1st respondent would submit that the 1st respondent is ready for the trial of the case and in the event the written statement is filed, the suit could be disposed of within two months. Learned counsel for revision petitioners also in unison with the 1st respondent and would submit that the revision petitioners would co-operate with the Tribunal and the case could be disposed of as suggested by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. We find that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, dispos
