S.V.P. Pookoya, S.V. Sayd Yousuf Koya Thangal, S.V. Syed Muhammed Koya Thangal and S.V.P. Hassan Koya Thangal vs Lakshadweep Stae Wakf Board, S.V. Cheriyakoya Thangal and U.C.K. Thangal

Antony Dominic, J.—What led the Petitioners to approach this Court is Ext.P2 proceedings of the committee headed by the 3rd Respondent scheduling proceedings in WC No. 1/2010 and connected case at Kavaratty on the 2nd of February, 2011.

The main contention raised by the Petitioners is that Ext.P1 is the proceedings of the 1st Respondent appointing the committee headed by the 3rd Respondent for recording the evidence in the aforesaid proceedings. Ext.P1 also specifies that the venue of such enquiry shall be at Androth and the reasons thereof are also mentioned in Ext.P1. The complaint of the Petitioners is that, despite the above, by Ext.P2 dated 7/1/2011, the Committee headed by the 3rd Respondent scheduled the enquiry on 2nd of February and the venue fixed is Kavaratti. It is stated that, thereupon the Petitioners filed Ext.P3 objection against the venue fixed at Kavaratti. Orders were not passed and therefore the writ petition has been filed.

I heard the counsel appearing for the parties.

It is pointed out on behalf of Respondents that initially the enquiry held in October/November was at Androth and that subsequently enquiry was held at Kavaratty on 20th and 21st of November. It is stated that, thereafter, on one occasion, further enquiry was held at Androth and that it was thereafter that the proceedings are now scheduled to be held at Kavaratti. It is also stated that what remains is to record the further evidence of the 2nd Respondent and hearing of certain interlocutory applications are also to be held. It is the contention of the Respondents that proceedings are scheduled at Kavaratty on the agreement of the parties.

Counsel for the Petitioners strongly disputed the contention of the Respondents that they have agreed for enquiry at Kavaratty.

Irrespective of the controversy now raised between the parties, fact remains that Ext.P1 is the proceedings of the 1st Respondent appointing the Committee for conducting enquiry. Ext.P1 proceedings of the 1st Respondent also fixes the venue, which is Androth, and therefore, so long as Ext.P1 remains without any modification, enquiry should have been held in compliance thereof and the Committee could not have shifted the venue. In that view of the matter, I find merit in the case of the Petitioners that the enquiry should have been fixed at Androth. Despite this, even the Petitioners have no objection in the Committee conducting its proceedings at Kavaratty only for the limited purpose of concluding hearing on the interlocutory applications.

Now that such submissions have been made by the Petitioners also, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:

(1) That the Committee headed by the 3rd Respondent will be free to hold its proceedings at Kavaratty on the 2nd of February, 2011 for the limited purpose of hearing interlocutory applications.

(2) The Committee shall thereafter schedule its further enquiry at Androth as specified in Ext.P1 for the further examination of the 2nd Respondent and for further enquiry, if any.