Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1788 (KER)

Ayoob, S/O Shamsudheen v. State of Kerala

2025-07-02

N.NAGARESH

body2025
JUDGMENT : N.NAGARESH, J. The petitioners, who are persons belonging to Kongal at Paravur, Kollam, have filed this writ petition seeking to command respondents 2, 5 and 6 to afford adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioners enabling them to attend the Juma prayers and other religious activities in the Town Mosque at Chillakkal. 2. The Chillakkal Muslim Jama-ath originally had a Mosque near seashore. The petitioners state that the Jama-ath constructed another Mosque in the town near the Main Road. The prayers were conducted in both the Mosques. The present Jama-ath Committee decided to hold the prayers in the Old Mosque alone. The petitioners would submit that the decision of the present Jama-ath is illegal. The petitioners are entitled to exercise their fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India to have prayers at the place of their choice. Jama-ath cannot unilaterally stop the prayers in the Town Mosque. 3. Respondents 9 to 11 entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. Respondents 9 to 11 submitted that the Old Mosque is near seashore over an extent of land of 1.5 Acres. During the reconstruction of the Old Mosque, the Friday prayers alone were shifted to the Town Mosque on a temporary basis. After reconstruction of the Old Mosque, by Ext.R9(d) resolution, the Jama-ath decided to shift back the prayers to the Old Mosque. 4. The petitioners resisted the move and caused physical obstructions. On the basis of a complaint, Ext.R9(e) FIR was filed against the petitioners. 5. When the matter was taken up to the District Collector, the District Collector took Ext.P5 decision. Ext.P5 decision is that the prayers should be held in both the Mosques till Ramsan and thereafter a final decision should be taken on the advice of Mushavara. Respondents 9 to 11 relying on Ext.R12(a) urged that the District Mushavara has already taken a decision that the Juma prayers should be confined to the Old Mosque. 6. The 12 th respondent pointed out that the Town Mosque is a new building in respect of which a Building Completion Certificate has not been issued by the Local Self Government Institution so far. It will not be safe for the devotees to hold prayers in the new Mosque. 7. Government Pleader submits that whenever complaints were received, the matter was enquired into and FIR was filed. It will not be safe for the devotees to hold prayers in the new Mosque. 7. Government Pleader submits that whenever complaints were received, the matter was enquired into and FIR was filed. As of now there is no law and order problem. If there is a likelihood of law and order issue, the police will promptly interfere in the matter. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 7, the learned counsel representing respondents 9 to 11, the learned counsel appearing for the 12 th respondent and the learned Standing Counsel representing the 8 th respondent. 9. The facts are not much in dispute. The original Old Mosque of the Jama-ath was situated near the seashore on an extent of land of 1.5 Acres. The Friday prayers were shifted to the new Town Mosque in between. Respondents 9 to 11 would contend that such shifting of Friday prayers was only to facilitate renovation of the Old Mosque at the seashore. When the reconstruction was over, the Jama-ath decided to shift back the prayers to the Old Mosque. 10. When the issue was brought before the District Collector, Ext.P5 decision was taken by the District Collector. The decision was that till the expiry of Ramsan period, prayers should be conducted in both the Mosques. After Ramsan, the devotees should maintain peace till the Mushavara takes a decision in the matter. Respondents 9 to 11 pointed out that District Mushavara has taken Ext.R12(a) decision whereunder the Mushavara has directed to conduct prayers in the Old Mosque alone. 11. From the pleadings, I find that the petitioner has approached the Waqf Board with a complaint against stopping of prayers at the Town Mosque. Waqf Board in I.A.No.135 of 2025 in O.P.No.122 of 2025 has passed Ext.P7 order holding that the petitioners in the O.P. have made out a prima facie case and the respondents were directed not to interfere in the functioning of Chillakkal Town Juma Masjid in order to stop Juma prayers in the Jama-ath. 12. The counsel representing respondents 9 to 11 would urge that the Kerala State Waqf Board has no power to pass such order and if any person is aggrieved they will have to approach the Waqf Tribunal. 13. 12. The counsel representing respondents 9 to 11 would urge that the Kerala State Waqf Board has no power to pass such order and if any person is aggrieved they will have to approach the Waqf Tribunal. 13. Be that as it may, since the Kerala State Waqf Board has passed Ext.P7 interim order, the parties will have to respect the same till the said order is vacated or revised. Respondents 9 to 12 will be at liberty to approach the Waqf Board and urge that the Waqf Board has no jurisdiction in the matter. In the facts of the case, I am of the view that it would be only just and proper to dispose of the writ petition directing the Waqf Board to conclude the proceedings in O.P.No.122 of 2025 in a time bound manner. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the Waqf Board to pass final orders in I.A.No.135 of 2025 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Waqf Board shall strive to conclude the proceedings in O.P.No.122 of 2025 as expeditiously as possible. Till a final decision is taken in I.A.No.135 of 2025, the benefit of interim order dated 03.04.2025 passed by this Court will continue to enure to the benefit of the petitioners.