K. Abdul Latheef v. District Registrar (General), Office of the District Registrar, Malappuram and Y. P. Moideenkutty, General Secretary, Valillapuzha Juma-ath Palli Paripalana Committee

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **MONDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA,** ## **1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 13532 OF 2019** ## **PETITIONER/S:** K.ABDUL LATHEEF AGED 49 YEARS S/O. ALI, SECRETARY, VALILLAPUZHA MUSLIM JAMAATH, MUHYUDHEEN JUMA MASJID, VALILAPUZHA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 639. BY ADV JAWAHAR JOSE ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR(GENERAL) OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 505. 2 Y.P.MOIDEENKUTTY GENERAL SECRETARY, VALILLAPUZHA JUMA-ATH PALLI PARIPALANA COMMITTEE, VALILLAPUZHA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 639. BY ADV SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR ## **OTHER PRESENT:** GP RIYAL DEVASSY **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON** **02.12.2022, THE COURT ON 05.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.13532 of 2019 -2- ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 05[th] day of December, 2022 The petitioner claims to be the Secretary of Valillapuzha Muslim Juma-ath,('the Society' for short), a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 ('the Act' for short). The society is in control of a Mosque and Madrassa and is the owner in possession of immovable property. The petitioner alleges that the second respondent formed another society by name 'Valillapuzha Juma-ath Committee' ('the Palli Paripalana Committee' for short) in 2013 and from then onwards, has been attempting to take over the society. This led to law and order issues, compelling the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Perinthalmanna to pass Ext.P3 order under Section 146(1) of Cr.P.C, appointing the Deputy Tahsildar, Ernad as Receiver. Some of the members ## W.P.(C) No.13532 of 2019 -3- approached the Waqf Board and obtained Ext.P6 order, restraining the conduct of election to the Juma-ath without prior permission of the Board. While so, the petitioner submitted a list of Committee members of the society from 1998 to 2019 before the District Registrar/first respondent as provided under Section 4 of the Act. The District Registrar accepted the list as per proceedings dated 15.12.2018. Thereupon, the second respondent filed Ext.P7 review petition before the first respondent seeking review of the decision taken on 15.12.2018 and to accept the list of members submitted by the petitioner. On receipt of notice in the application for review, the petitioner filed Ext.P8 objection. Thereafter, the first respondent issued Ext.P9 order allowing the review petition and cancelling the proceedings dated 15.12.2018 by which the list of committee members submitted by the petitioner was accepted. Aggrieved, this writ W.P.(C) No.13532 of 2019 -4- petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P9 order. 2. Heard Adv.Jawahar Jose for the petitioner, Adv.M.Krishnakumar for the second respondent and Government Pleader, Adv.Riyal Devassy for the first respondent. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vociferously contended that Ext.P9 order is _ex facie_ illegal for three reasons; (i) an order of review could not have been passed at the instance of the second respondent, who is not even member of the Society. (ii) the first respondent is not conferred with the power of review and (iii) the impugned order is way beyond the power conferred under Section 4 of the Act. In elaboration, Adv.Jawahar Jose submitted that the second respondent is the member and officer bearer of the Palli Paripalana Committee, which has been attempting to take over the society and its assets. Being so, the first respondent committed gross illegality in entertaining the ## W.P.(C) No.13532 of 2019 -5- review petition filed by a third party. The first respondent's role under Section 4 of the Act is limited to acceptance of the annual list of managing body members filed by societies. The petitioner had filed the list of managing body members of the society from 1998-2019. The reason for filing the list belatedly was also explained. The first respondent accepted the list being satisfied with the explanation. The first respondent having become _functus officio_ thereafter, could not have reviewed the proceedings. Relying on _**Moozhikkal Aboobacker v.**_ ## _**District Registrar (General) and others [2017 (2)**_ _**KLT 792**_ , it is contended that members of one society cannot object to the registration of members of another society. Such objection is possible only if the objectors are members of the same society. Moreover, Ext.P9 being an administrative order, the first respondent could W.P.(C) No.13532 of 2019 -6- not have reviewed the order, in the absence of conferment of the power of review under the Act. 4. Learned Counsel for the second respondent submitted that in the writ petition, there is an admission that the petitioner is a member of the Society. In this regard, attention is drawn to the following statement in paragraph 2 of the writ petition; _“The second respondent was a member of the_ _petitioner society. However, the second respondent along with his men formed another society in the year 2013 by name 'Valillapuzha Juma-ath Palli Paripalana Committee by suppressing the existence of the petitioner's society.”_ It is contended that the averments in the writ petition are false and distorted. The very averment that the petitioner is the secretary of the society is false. The name of the society registered as per Ext.P1 is 'Valillapuya Muslim Jama-ath', whereas, the cause title of the writ W.P.(C) No.13532 of 2019 -7- petition would show that petitioner is the Secretary of the Valillapuzha Muslim Juma-ath Muhyudheen Juma Masjid. The real facts are that, a little while after its registration, the activities of the society came to a standstill and the general body decided to register a new society. Thus, the Palli Paripalana Committee was registered on 01.03.2013. Thereafter, the Society was replaced with the Palli Paripalana Committee. The mosque, madrassa and the properties of the society are under the administration of the Palli Paripalana Committee. In a clandestine bid to take over the administration, the petitioner, along with few others, created a bogus list of committee members for the period from 1998-2019. The list was thereafter submitted before the first respondent, who, without noticing the forgery, accepted the list in a routine manner. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had alerted the first respondent about the possibility of W.P.(C) No.13532 of 2019 -8- such attempts being made. Later, when it came to light that the petitioner had achieved his clandestine objective, the application for review was submitted. Having been a member of the society and being the secretary of the Palli Paripalana Committee which replaced the society, the second respondent has every right to seek correction of the proceedings accepting the bogus lists submitted by the petitioner. The first respondent being conferred with the power to accept the list of managing committee members, is also having the power to rescind the list. The power can be traced to Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1987. In this regard, reference is made to the decision in _**Deepthi T.S and others v.**_ _**- Chairman, Al Azar Medical College & Super Speciality Hospital, Thodupuzha and others [2017**_ _**(5) KHC 460].**_ Therein the Division Bench observed that unlike the substantive review power, which W.P.(C) No.13532 of 2019 -9- can be exercised only if the statute confers the power, the power of procedural review inheres in all courts and authorities. The impugned order being one passed in exercise of the power of procedural review, the first respondent had ample power to review the proceedings. Further, under Section 4 of the Act, the Registrar is conferred with the power to examine whether the list furnished is false or bogus, as held in _**Narayanan**_ ## _**K.K and others v. District Registrar, Kasaragod**_ ## _**and others [2015(4) KLT 1028]**_ . 5. Learned Government Pleader adopted the arguments of the learned Counsel for the second respondent and submitted that the fraud committed by the petitioner was noticed only on the second respondent filing the review petition. Thereupon, the first respondent went through the available records pertaining to the society. The Scrutiny revealed that the list of Committee ## W.P.(C) No.13532 of 2019 ## -10- members of the society of the year 1998 had been filed and accepted way back on 04.01.1998. It was also noticed that the Committee members therein are different from the members named in the petitioner's list. The impugned proceedings reveals that, during the course of hearing of the review, the second respondent had produced all relevant documents with respect to the administration of the Waqf and its properties. The petitioner on the other hand failed to produce any document. 6. In the light of the admission in the writ petition that the second respondent was a member of the society, the challenge against the _locus standi_ of the second respondent to seek review of the proceedings, cannot be countenanced. No doubt, the power conferred on the Registrar as per Section 4 of the Act is very limited. At the same time, such limitation does not take away the Registrar's power to examine ## W.P.(C) No.13532 of 2019 -11- whether the list furnished is false or bogus. This question was considered and answered in ## _**Narayanan K.K and others v. District Registrar, Kasaragod and others [2015 (4) KLT 1028]**_ as under; _“The scope of exercising power under S.4 of the Societies Registration Act is only to the limited extent of examining whether the list furnished is false or bogus. The enquiry is not directed against election or selection but to find out the genuineness of the list. Once a list is furnished in accordance with the election, the scope of enquiry would come to an end, even if the selection is bad. The scope of enquiry is only to find out whether the list being furnished is not by way of any bogus claim or by fraudulent claim.”_ As rightly contended by the Counsel for the second respondent, as per Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, power to issue an order includes the power to add, amend, vary or rescind the order. Moreover, as held in _**Deepthi T.S** (supra),_ the power of procedural review inheres W.P.(C) No.13532 of 2019 -12- in all authorities and such power can be exercised when the authority is convinced that the order sought to be reviewed was rendered on wrong facts or without hearing the affected party. Here, the allegation is that the petitioner got the list accepted by committing fraud and forgery. Being so, it is well within the power of the first respondent to have recalled the order. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the order in exercise of the power of judicial review. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/ W.P.(C) No.13532 of 2019 -13- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13532/2019** PETITIONER EXHIBITS |EXHIBIT P1|TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF| |---|---| ||REGISTRATION ISSUED BY THE IST| ||RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER SOCIETY| ||DATED 12.12.1979.| |EXHIBIT P2|TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTER OF WAKFS| ||SHOWING THE REGISTRATION OF PETITIONER| ||SOCIETY IN THE YEAR 1981 BEFORE THE| ||KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD.| |EXHIBIT P3|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.9.2018| ||PASSED BY THE SUB DIVISIONAL| ||MAGISTRATE, PERINTHALMANNA.| |EXHIBIT P4|TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED| ||28.9.2018 (WRONGLY TYPED AS| ||28.10.2018) EXECUTED BY THE PARTIES IN| ||THE PRESENCE OF THE MEDIATORS AND THE| ||DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,| ||MALAPPURAM.| |EXHIBIT P5|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.10.2018| ||PASSED BY THE SUB DIVISIONAL| ||MAGISTRATE, PERINTHALMANNA.| |EXHIBIT P6|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.9.2018| ||IN I.A.NO.132/2018 IN O.P.NO.159/2018| ||ISSUED BY THE WAKF BOARD.| |EXHIBIT P7|TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED| ||14.2.2018 (ACTUAL DATED 14.2.2019)| ||BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P8|TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED| ||14.3.2019 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE| ||IST RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P9|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.4.2019| ||ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.| |RESPONDENT EXHIBITS|| |Exhibit R2a|TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE| ||DATED 24.2.1977 ISSUED AS PER ORDER IN| ||OA NO 2059/1975 ON THE FILE OF THE| ||LAND TRIBUNAL MALAPURAM| |Exhibit R2b|TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE| ||DATED 23.8.1978 ISSUED AS PER ORDER IN| ||OA 2489/1977 ON THE FILE OF THE LAND| -14- ## W.P.(C) No.13532 of 2019 ||TRIBUNAL AREACODE| |---|---| |Exhibit R2c|TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF| ||REGISTRATION DATED 20.3.2013 ISSUED BY| ||THE `1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND| ||RESPONDENT SHOWING THE CHANGED NAME| |RESPONDENT EXHIBITS|| |Exhibit R2d|TRUE COPY OF THE| ||REPRESENTATION/COMPLAINT FILED BY THE| ||2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT| ||DATED 12.3.2018| |RESPONDENT EXHIBITS|| |Exhibit R2e|TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE WAKF| ||INSPECTOR DATED 3.8.2018| |Exhibit R2f|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED| ||25.11.2019 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF| ||KERALA IN THE WRIT PETITION WPC NO| ||22576/2019, FILED BY THE 2ND| ||RESPONDENT| |Exhibit R2g|TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT COUNTER| ||AFFIDAVIT DATED 18.12.2021 FILED BY| ||THE PETITIONER IN THIS WRIT PETITION| ||ALONG WITH SRI.ASHRAF.P.T IN WPC| ||19097/2021| |Exhibit R2H|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED| ||18.1.2022 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF| ||KERALA IN WPC NO 9097/2021| |Exhibit R2I|TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED| ||BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST| ||RESPONDENT ON 7.3.2019| |Exhibit R2(J)|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED| ||29/06/2022 PASSED BY THE KERALA STATE| ||WAKF BOARD IN O.P NO. 159/2018|