OP(Wakf) No. 9 of 2019
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- C. K. Abdul Rehim
- R. Narayana Pisharadi
- Judgment Date
- 2019-03-21
- Court Decision / Holding
- Permission is granted. Accordingly, the above original petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty reserved to file a revision petition under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act.
- Final Disposition
- Original petition withdrawn/dismissed with liberty to file revision under Section 83(9) Wakf Act.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- MUHAMMED HAMSATH
- MOIDEEN HAJI K.C.
- ABOOBACKER P.K.
- ABDUL KABEER K.P.
- MUHAMMED MUSHTHAFA K.P.
- ABDUL SALAM P.K.
- ASSAIN P.K.
- SHIHABUDHEEN. O.K.
- ABDUL SALAM P.P.
- BASHEERUDHEEN C.K.
- USMAN P.P.
- MOYINKUTTI K.K.
- ABDUL RAHIMAN P.K.
- MOIDEEN C.V.
- ABOOBACKER
Respondents
- MOOSAMOULAVI.K.K.
- IBRAHIM MASTER P.V.
- ABDURAHIMAN K.V
- SAIDALAVI K.K.
- MUHAMMED M.K.
- ABDURAHIMAN S/O. MUHAMMED
- ABDURAHIMAN HAJI S/O. KUTTIRAYIN HAJI
- AHAMMEDKUTTI K.
- ABDUL AZEEZ
- MUHAMMED
- ABDUL SHUKKUR
- ABDURAHIMAN S/O. MUHAMMED HAJA
- ABDUL GAFOOR S/O. MUHAMMED
- ABDULLMURINGATT S/O. MOIDEEN HAJI
- SALEEM S/O. HUSSAIN
- KAKKOVHIDAYATHULMUSLIMEENSANGAM
- P.V. ALAVI MOULAVI PRESIDENT
- K.T. ABDURAHIMAN SECRETARY
- ADVOCATE SHIHABUDHEEN P.K.
- KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Imam Grigorios Karat
- • Bijith S. Khan
- • N. Anand
- • N. Krishna Prasad
Counsels for Respondents
- • T.P. Sajid
Case Synopsis & Summary
This Kerala High Court matter arises as an original petition under Article 227 challenging an order/judgment in OS 86/2018 before the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode. The petition contends maintainability under Article 227 given the Wakf Act, specifically Section 83(9) and its proviso, which authorizes the High Court to call for records from the Tribunal for satisfying itself about the correctness of its determination. The court frames the issue as whether Article 227 relief can prevail where a statutory remedy under Wakf Act Section 83(9) exists and can be efficaciously invoked. It relies on Muhammed Ashraf K. v. Islamic Preaching Trust, Vazhakkad & another (2018(2) KHC 150(DB)) to hold that orders passed by the Tribunal on applications filed by one party and objected by another can be challenged in revision under the proviso to Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, thereby limiting Article 227 jurisdiction. It also cites K.K. Shrivastava et al. v. Bhupendra Kumar (AIR 1977 SC 1703) to support the proposition that procedurally the court should refrain from Article 227 when an efficacious statutory remedy exists. The petitioners seek withdrawal with liberty to file a revision under Section 83(9). The court grants permission, dismisses the petition as withdrawn, and directs filing of the revision petition; registry is to return copies for this purpose. The matter is heard by a Division Bench comprising C.K. Abdul Rehim and R. Narayana Pisharadi.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Doctrine of efficacious statutory remedy under Wakf Act, Section 83(9), precluding routine exercise of Article 227 jurisdiction when an efficacious remedy exists.
- Proviso-based revision remedy under Section 83(9) Wakf Act as an efficacious alternative to challenge Tribunal orders.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contended that Article 227 of the Constitution governs the challenge to the Wakf Tribunal’s order; however, given a clear statutory remedy exists under Section 83(9) Wakf Act to revise Tribunal orders, the High Court should exercise caution or refrain from entertaining a petition under Article 227. They sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to challenge the impugned order by filing a revision under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, arguing the remedy is efficacious, expeditious, and appropriate, and aligns with statutory provisions.
Contentions of Respondents
The Wakf Board’s counsel and standing counsel argued that Article 227 should yield to the statutory remedy under Wakf Act; the appropriate remedy for challenging Tribunal orders is revision under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, as limited by the proviso. They relied on precedents emphasizing the necessity to avoid Article 227 when efficacious statutory remedies exist and to permit statutory revision processes to address disputes, citing Muhammed Ashraf K. v. Islamic Preaching Trust and K.K. Shrivastava v. Bhupendra Kumar.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Muhammed Ashraf K. v. Islamic Preaching Trust, Vazhakkad & another | 2018(2) KHC 150(DB) | Positive | Cited to support that orders of the Wakf Tribunal on applications under 83(9) can be challenged in revision under the proviso to Section 83(9), rendering Article 227 non-maintainable where an efficacious statutory remedy exists. |
| K.K. Shrivastava et al. v. Bhupendra Kumar | AIR 1977 SC 1703 | Positive | Cited to justify refraining from Article 227 jurisdiction when an efficacious statutory remedy exists. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against OP(Wakf) No. 9 of 2019 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.