Halwan and Others v. Rahaman and Others
HALWAN AND OTHERS
v.RAHAMAN AND OTHERS
COURT OF APPEAL.
ANANDA GRERO, J.
CA REV. APPLN NO. 556/92.
WAKFS BOARD NO. 165/88.
WAKFS TRIBUNAL NO. 36.
SEPTEMBER 27th, MAY, 23rdAND NOVEMBER 18th 1992.
Revision – Muslim Law-Wakfs Tribunal – Wakfs Board – Election by Jam'ath(congregation) — Selection or nomination by Sheik of Beruwela of Trustees -Practices, rules, regulations, etc. of Ulahitiwala Mosque (or Thakkiya) — Section14 (1)(a) and 15A of the Muslim Mosques and Charitable Trusts or Wakfs Act- Res judicata – Excess of Jurisdiction — Regulation 42.
The petitioners made an application to the Wakfs Board under section 14 (1)of the Muslim Mosques and Charitable Trusts or Wakfs Act to confirm and appointthem as Trustees of the Ulahitiwela Jumma Mosque, Malawana, on the basisof election at a meeting of the Jam'ath (congregation) of the said Mosque heldon 22.12.1985. The respondents opposed this. The Wakfe Board by its orderdated 03.01.1988 declined to confirm and appoint the petitioners as Trustees ofthe said Mosque referred to as Ulahitiwela Thakkiya and directed the Directorto write to the Sheik of Beruwela to send his nominees to be appointed as Trusteesas had been done in the past.
The petitioners then appealed against the order of the Wakfs Board to the WakfeTribunal. The Wakfs Tribunal by its order of 6.4.1988 dismissed the appealand confirmed the order of the Wakfs Board.
The petitioners gave notice of appeal but this was not pursued. An applicationfor leave to appeal was filed but this was rejected as it was out of time. Thepetitioners also filed an application for writs of Certiorari and Mandamus againstthe order of the Wakfs Board and Wakfe Tribunal but this was also dismissedon 01.11.1991. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the dismissal wasalso refused.
In the meanwhile the Wakfs Board by its letter dated 4.8.1988 appointed fiveof the respondents as Trustees of the Ulahitiwela Thakkiya (Mosque) for a periodof three years from 26.6.88 to 25.6.91.
The Wakfs Board by its order dated 28.3.1992 refused the application of thepetitioners to stay proceedings under section 15 of the Wakfs Act. The Trusteeshowever were prevented from entering upon the duties of their office by thepetitioners. The Wakfe Board further ordered the Director to apply to theMagistrate's Court of Gampaha for an order directing the Fiscal to hand over
Sri Lanka Law Reports
 1 Sri LR.
the moveable properties of the Ulahitiwela Thakkiya to the duly appointedTrustees. The petitioners appealed against this order to the Wakfs Tribunal. TheWakfs Tribunal dismissed the appeal by its order dated 30.6.92.
On 28.12.91 the respondents were reappointed Trustees under section 14 (1)(a)of the Act for a period of three years commencing on 25.6.91 and ending on31.12.94. Against the said appointment and the order of the Board dated 28.3.92the petitioners appealed to the Wakfs Tribunal. By its order of 30.6.92 theseappeals also were dismissed by the Wakfs Tribunal. The present proceedingsin revision were filed by the petitioners against the order of 30.6.92.
The plain meaning of section 14 (1) (a) of the Wakfs Act is that once Trusteeshave been selected or nominated, then the Wakfs Board has to confirm andappoint such persons to be Trustees of the particular mosque. Before suchconfirmation and appointment by the Board, the Trustees should have beenselected or nominated according to the practices, rules, regulations, etc. of themosque.
According to such practices, rules, etc. so far as the Mosque or UlahitiwelaThakkiya is concerned the Sheilk of Beruwela selects or nominates the Trusteesfor a term of three years.
At the time the Board on 28.12.91 appointed the respondents for 3 yearscommencing from 25.6.1991 to 31.12.94 the period of office of the respondentshad expired on 25.6.1991. Once the period expires then again the Trustees haveto be selected or nominated according to the practices, rules, etc. as contemplatedin section 14(1)(a) of the Act. In this Mosque or Thakkiya the Sheik of Beruwelahas to select or nominate the Trustees for another period of office. When suchselection or nomination is made, the Wakfs Board is entitled to confirm and appointsuch persons as Trustees of the Mosque or Thakkiya in terms of section 14(1)(a) of the Act. Just because theTrustees selected or nominated were preventedfrom functioning (between 26.6.88 and 25.6.1991) owing to certain actions of thepetitioners, the Wakfs Board has no power to confirm and appoint the samepersons as Trustees for another term of office under section 14 (1)(a) of theAct as was done on 28.12.91.
The respondents ceased to hold office by effluxion of time (i.e. from 25.6.91)and they had not obtained the Sheik's approval afresh for the period 25.6.91to 31.12.94 at the time when the Wakfs Board appointed them to hold officeas trustees of this Mosque. The Wakfs Board had no jurisdiction and no powerto reappoint the said respondents as Trustees despite the fact that they had beendeprived of functioning as Trustees during their legal tenure of office from 25.6.88to 25.6.91 as there was no fresh selection or nomination by the Sheik. The WakfsBoard acted in excess of its jurisdiction and so did the Wakfs Tribunal byconfirming the impugned orders in Appeal. The execution proceedings beforethe Magistrate's Court are outside its jurisdiction.
Halwan and Others v. Rahaman and Others (Ananda Grero, J.)
No question of res judicata in view of the orders made against the petitionersby the Courts arises.
Section 14 (1)(a) of the Wakfs Act prevails over regulation 42 publishedin Gazette dated 29.3.1985 which seeks to add the words ° by the Jamalh ‘to section 14 (1)(a). This section still stands in effect unchanged.
it is open to the Wakfs Board to appoint new trustees in accordance withthe practice of this Mosque whereby the Sheik of Beruwela selects or nominatesthe Trustees.
APPLICATION in revision against the orders of the Wakfs Tribunal.
Sivarasa with M. Musjeed for petitioners.
K. Kanag-tswaran, P.C. with M. S. A. Hassen, M. Farook Thahir, Harsha Cabraaland A. C. Abdul Latheef for 1st, 2nd, 5th, 5A and 5B respondents.
N. W. Zanoon with /. Zaheed for 3rd respondent
Cur. adv. vult.
February 15, 1993.
ANANDA GRERO, J.
This is an application made by the petitioners-petitioners to thisCourt, for revision, under Article 138 of the Constitution of theDemocratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. They pray that for theaverments contained in their petition and affidavit (i) to revise theorder of the Wakfs Tribunal dated 30.6.92, (ii) to set aside the orderof the Wakfs Board dated 30.6.92, (iii) to set aside the order of theWakfs Board dated 28.3.92, (iv) to annul and or rescind theappointment of the respondents as Trustees for the period between25.6.91 to 31.12.94, and (v) to grant other reliefs claimed in para-graphs (e) to (h) of the prayer to the petition.
The 1st, 2nd, 5th, 5Aand 5B respondents-respondents filed theirstatement of objections and for the averments stated therein prayedthat the application of the petitioners be dismissed.
The 3rd respondent also filed his statement of objections andsought almost the same reliefs as those of the petitioners. HisAttorney-at-law, made oral submissions at the inquiry, and also tenderedwritten submissions on his behalf.
Sri Lanka Law Reports
 1 SriL-R.
The petitioners-petitioners state, that they made an application tothe Wakfs Board on 28.1.1986 under section 14(1) of the MuslimMosques and Charitable Trusts or Wakfs Act to confirm and appointthem as Trustees of the Ulahitiwela Jumma Mosque, Malwana onthe basis that they had been elected as Trustees at a meeting heldof the Jam'ath (congregation) of the said mosque on 22.12.85.
The 1st to 5th respondents-respondents also made an applicationto the Wakfs Board opposing the aforesaid application of thepetitioners. The Wakfs Board by its order dated 3.01.88 (P3) declinedto confirm and appoint the petitioners as Trustees of the aforesaidmosque (which is referred to as Ulahitiwela Thakkiya in the order)and directed the Director to write to the Sheikh of Beruwala to sendhis nominees to be appointed as Trustees, as has been done in thepast.
The petitioners thereafter appealed against the order of the WakfsBoard to the Wakfs Tribunal, and the said Tribunal by its order dated6.4.88 (P4) dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of theWakfs Board dated 3.1.88.
Against the said order of the Tribunal although the petitioners gavenotice of appeal and filed an application for leave to appeal, theydid not pursue the appeal and the leave to appeal application wasrejected by this Court as it was out of time.
The petitioners also filed on 22.7.88 an application bearingNo. 780/88 for a Writ of Certiorari and Mandamus against the WakfsBoard and Wakfs Tribunal.
Meanwhile the Wakfs Board by its letter dated 4.8.88 has ap-pointed the 1st two and last three respondents-respondents to theapplication as Trustees of the Ulahitiwela Thakkiya (mosque) for aperiod of 3 years commencing from 26.6.88 and ending on 25.6.91(vide P5).
This Court on 1.11.91 delivered its order dismissing the applicationof the petitioners for Writs of Certiorari and Mandamus upon apreliminary objection raised by the counsel for the 1st to 5threspondents. (vide P6) The petitioners applied for leave from the Courtof Appeal to appeal against the said order to the Supreme Courtbut the leave to appeal application was refused by this Court.
CAHalwan and Others v. Rahaman and Others (Anartda Grero, J.)205
The Wakfs Board by its order dated 28.3.92, refused theapplication of the petitioners to stay proceedings under section 15of the Wakfs Act. (vide P10) The Wakfs Board further ordered theDirector to make an application to the Magistrate's Court ofGampaha for an order directing the Fiscal of that Court to takedelivery or possession of the moveable properties of the UlahitiwelaThakkiya (mosque) from the respondents (i.e. the petitioners-petitioners to this application) and to hand them over to the dulyappointed Trustees of the said Thakkiya.
Thereafter the petitioners appealed against the aforesaid order tothe Wakfs Tribunal, and the said Tribunal made its final orderdismissing the appeal and directed the petitioners to hand overforthwith all properties of the Thakkiya (mosque) in question that areheld by them or by their nominees or agents. (vide P13). Againstthe said order dated 30.6.92, the petitioners-petitioners madethis application for Revision to this Court. This is in short thebackground of this application in question.
At the inquiry before this Court, two prominent sections of theWakfs Act became the subject of discussion. They are sections 14(1 )(a) and 15A of the said Act. Apart from the said two sections,the other sections that were referred to are sections 14 (2), 54 and55A of the Wakfs Act.
This Court is of the view, that in order to find out whether theWakfs Board on 28.12.91, acted within the ambit of its powers,section 14 (1)(a) of the Act is very material and important. In factthe main issue in this case, whether the Trustees have beenconfirmed and appointed by the Wakfs Board rests on the aforesaidsection.
The said section is as follows :
As soon as may be, after a mosque has been registered undersection 13, the Board –
(a) shall confirm and appoint a person or persons to be a
Trustee or Trustees who is or have been selected or nominated
according to the practices, rules, regulations or other arrangements
in force for the administration of the mosque.
Sri Lanka Law Reports
 1 Sri LR.
The learned counsel for the petitioners-petitioners states in hiswritten submissions that according to this section (i.e. 14 (1)(a)the appointment by the Board is in fact a confirmation of thenomination or selection. While agreeing with this submission, it shouldbe stated, that the said section empowers the Board to confirm andappoint the trustees who have been selected or nominated accordingto the practices, rules etc, for the proper administration of the mosqueconcerned. The Board cannot deviate from the provision of the abovesection 14 (1)(a) of the Wakfs Act under any circumstances, otherthen those circumstances shown in section 14 (1 )(b) and (c) of theAct. But such circumstances are not applicable to the instant case.
The plain meaning of section 14 (1)(a) is, that once the Trusteeshave been selected or nominated, then the Board has to confirm andappoint such persons to be the Trustees of the particular mosque.Before such confirmation and appointment by the Board, Trusteesshould have been selected or nominated according to the practices,rules, regulations, etc., of the mosque.
According to such practices, rules, etc. it appears that as far asthe mosque or Ulahitiwela Thakkiya is concerned, the Sheik ofBeruwela selects or nominates the Trustees for a term of three years.The order of the Wakfs Board dated 3.1.88 (P3) reveals, this fact,very well. There is evidence to show that the respondents-respondents(other than 3rd respondent-respondent Ahamed Nuhman) were soappointed as Trustees for a period from 26.6.88 to 25.6.91, i.e. fora period of three years.
The order of the Wakfs Board dated 28.12.91 (P7) reveals thatthe said respondents-respondents have been appointed as Trusteesunder section 14 (1)(a) of the Act for a period of three yearscommencing from 25.6.91 to 31.12.94. Against the said appointmentand the order of the board dated 28.3.92 these petitioners-petitioners had appealed to the Wakfs Tribunal (vide P11). But theirappeal was dismissed by the Tribunal by its order dated 30.6.92 (videP13).
The dismissal of the afore-mentioned appeal of the petitioners-petitioners would mean, that the Tribunal was in agreement withthe order of the board dated 28.12.91, marked P7. At the time theBoard appointed the respondents-respondents as Trustees of the
Halwan and Others v. Rahaman and Others (Ananda Grero, J.)
mosque in question, their period of office has expired. In fact theAttorney-at-law who appeared for them before the Board has statedas follows:
"that the present petitioners (i.e. the respondents-respondents)
were appointed as Trustees on 26.6.88 for a period of 3 years, whichperiod expired on 25.6.91".
Therefore it follows that the Board knew that their term of officehas expired when the Board made the appointment for a period of3 years commencing from 25.6.91 to 31.12.94 on 28.12.91.
The question that arises is, whether provisions of section 14 (1)(a)of the Act provides for such an appointment by the Board as wasdone on 28.12.91? As earlier stated the practice, has been that theSheik of Beruwala, to select or nominate the Trustees to this mosqueor Thakkiya for a period of three years. Once that is done then theBoard is empowered under the aforesaid section to confirm andappoint such Trustees. This procedure is in conformity with theprovisions of this section. The Board cannot and shall not deviatefrom such procedure.
The learned counsel for the respondents-respondents in his writtensubmissions states thus :
“ The fact that these respondents were not able to exercisetheir rights as Trustees cannot and does not detract from theirstatus of being persons who have been nominated by Sheikaccording to the practices obtaining at this Thakkiya, within theambit and scope of section 14 (1)(a).
Therefore it is respectfully submitted that there was no legalimpediment to the confirmation and appointment of these respondentswithin the meaning of section 14 (1)(a) of the Wakfs Act “.
No doubt the respondents-respondents were not able to functionas Trustees due to certain actions taken by the petitioners. Whatevermay be the reason the fact remains, that the term of office of therespondents-respondents expired on 25.6.91.
Sri Lanka Law Reports
 1 Sri L.R.
According to section 14 (2) (a) of the Act, only a person appointedas a Trustee shall officiate as Trustee for such period as providedfor by the practices, rules, regulations, or other arrangements in forcefor the administration of the mosque. The practice has been for theSheik of Beruwala to select or nominate the Trustees for a term ofthree years. Therefore the provisions of the aforesaid section permitthe trustees to function for a period of three years. Once such periodexpires then again the Trustees have to be selected or nominatedaccording to the practices, rules, etc., as contemplated in section 14(1)(a) of the Act. In this mosque or Thakkiya, it appears that theSheik of Beruwela has to select or nominate the Trustees for anotherperiod of office. When such selection or nomination is made, thenthere is no doubt that the Wakfs Board is entitled to confirm andappoint such persons as Trustees of the mosque or Thakkiya in termsof section 14 (1)(a) of the Act. But this Court rejects the view, thatjust because the Trustees so selected or nominated by the Sheikof Beruwela were prevented from functioning as Trustees due tocertain actions of the petitioners-petitioners the Wakfs Board hasthe power to confirm and appoint the same persons as Trustees foranother term of office under section 14 (1)(a) of the Act as was donein this case on 28.12.91. Although the learned counsel for therespondents-respondents states that there is no impediment forsuch confirmation and appointment of the said respondents asTrustees under the provisions of section 14 (1)(a) of the Act, I amunable to agree with his contention. The said section has notempowered the Board to confirm and appoint persons whose termof office has expired, although they were not able to function asTrustees for no fault on their part.
The learned counsel for the respondents-respondents furthersubmits that there is 'no restriction in the Act from extending a periodof office of those qualified as Trustees (vide para 26 of the writtensubmissions). If the intention of the legislature was to extend theperiod of office of those persons qualified as Trustees by the Board,it would have specifically stated so in the Act itself. But nothing tothat effect has been incorporated in this Act.
Can this Court take advantage of the omission (i.e. for not havingstated that the term of office of trustees could be extended or notby the Board) and say that the Board is empowered to extend theperiod of office of those who qualified as Trustees of the mosque?
CAHalwan and others v. Rahaman and Others (Ananda Grero, J.)209
Bindra's Interpretation of Statutes (7th edition) at page 358states :
“The Courts by supplying the omissions in an Act of legislaturewould be travelling far afield, and it would be open to seriousobjection when the Courts deviate from their real function ofconstruction and enter upon legislation which is obviously nottheir real function and outside their purview. The Courts cannotsay to themselves that through oversight the Legislature has failedto provide for a particular situation, and, therefore what was notdone by the Legislature may be done by the Court. This doesnot lie within the judicial field. The general rule in all such cases
isfo give effect to the presumed intention of the Legislature
and to carry out what appears to be the general policy of theLaw".
It appears that the intention of the Legislature is that the Boarditself cannot extend the period of office of persons who have beenselected or nominated according to the practices, rules, etc. (in thiscase the practice is selection or nomination by the Sheik of Beruwela)to continue for another term. What the Board is entitled to do is toconfirm and appoint such persons once they are selected ornominated according to the practices of the mosque, as stated insection 14 (1)(a) of the Act. Therefore I am unable to agree withthe aforementioned contention of the learned counsel for therespondents-respondents.
The order made by the Wakfs Tribunal on 30.6.92 (P13) was theresult of an appeal made by the petitioners-petitioners dated 23.4.92seeking to set aside the order of the Wakfs Board dated 28.3.92(P10), and to make fresh appointment of Trustees in accordance withlaw and taking into account the wishes of the members of the Jamathof the mosque in question. The Tribunal dismissed the said appeal.One of the reasons for the dismissal of the appeal appears to bethat the Trustees (i.e. the respondents-respondents) were kept outand not allowed to function by reason of the applications, and appeals,filed by the petitioners-petitioners. It is no doubt true ; but as thelearned counsel for the 3rd respondent-respondent states that thefact remains that the respondents-respondents have ceased to holdoffice by effluxion of time, i.e. from 25.6.91 and they have notobtained the Sheik's approval afresh for the period 25.6.91 to31.12.94, at the time when the Wakfs Board appointed them to holdoffice as Trustees of this mosque.
Sri Lanka Law Reports
 1 Sri LR.
P7 reveals that one Mr. Abdul Latiff, Attorney-at-law for therespondents-respondents (petitioners before the Board) had requestedthe Board that an order be made extending their period of office asTrustees. The Board had taken into consideration the said Vequestalso, and decided to appoint them for another period of three yearscommencing from 25.6.91 to 31.12.94. Nowhere in this order (P7)is it stated that the Board confirmed and appointed them(respondents-respondents) as they were the persons selected tonominate according to the practices, rules, etc. of the mosqueconcerned ; i.e. to say those who have been selected or nominatedby the Sheik of Beruwela. The learned counsel for the 3rdrespondent-respondent in his written submissions draws the attentionof Court to this fact. He says that the other respondents, (i.e. otherthan the 3rd respondent) cannot seek to maintain that Wakfs Board,had the jurisdiction and power to reappoint the said respondents asTrustees on an order made pursuant to a request made byMr. A. C. M. Latiff an Attorney-at-law by reason of the fact that theyhad been deprived of functioning as Trustees, during their legaltenure of office, i.e. 25.6.88 to 25.6.91. Even the learned counselfor the petitioners-petitioners submits, that Wakfs Board had no powerunder 14 (1)(a) to appoint the said respondents as trustees for thesaid period after the expiry of their term of appointment on 25.6.91,as they have not been selected or nominated by the Sheik for thesaid period. He further says such appointment made by the Boardis therefore in excess of its jurisdiction, since the Board is onlyempowered under the section (14) (1) (a) to confirm and appointpersons selected or nominated according to the practices of themosque. I
I fully agree with the contentions made by them, and reiterate thatthe Wakfs Board had acted beyond the scope of the provisions ofthe Act, and more particularly against the provisions of section 14(1)(a) of the Act. Such an act done by the Board has been approvedby the Wakfs Tribunal when it dismissed the appeal of the petitioners-petitioners. Although the learned counsel for the respondents-respondents submits that the order of the Wakfs Tribunal of 30.6.92is intra vires its competence, valid in law and should be upheld, Icannot agree with this submission. When in fact, the Board had actedbeyond its powers conferred by the Act, could it be said that theTribunal was correct when it upheld the order of the Board? I amof the view that both the Board and the Tribunal had acted erroneouslyand against the provisions of section 14 (1)(a) of the Act.
Halwan and Others v. Rahaman and Others (Ananda Grero, J.)
The learned counsel for the petitioners-petitioners states that theexercise of the power of appointment of Trustees by the Wakfs Boardwhich has been confirmed in appeal by the Wakfs Tribunal and issought to be enforced by execution proceedings before theMagistrate's Court is in excess of its jurisdiction. Therefore he submitsthat this an exceptional circumstance, is warranting the exercise ofthe revisionary powers of this Court.
Upon the perusal of section 15A of the Act it manifests thatproceedings in the relevant Magistrate's Court could be initiated byway of an application in order to hand over the possession of propertyof the mosque to the Trustees when the Board has appointedTrustees. This appointment must be done in terms of the provisionsof section 14 (1) of the Act: and in the instant case what is applicableis section 14 (1)(a) of the Act.
As earlier stated the Board had acted beyond its powers ; andthe Tribunal confirmed such illegal appointment. Under suchcircumstances it cannot be held that proceedings can be lawfullytaken in the Magistrate's Court to compel the petitioners-petitionersto hand over possession of the properties to the so called" Trustees " of the mosque, as contemplated in section 15A of theAct. In the aforesaid circumstances this Court is of the view thatexceptional circumstances do exist to exercise the revisionery powersof this Court.
On the question of Res Judicata this Court considered thesubmissions made by respective Counsel appearing for the partiesto this application. The issue whether the Wakfs Board on 28.12.91had acted within the purview of section 14 (1) (a) of the Act is verycentral to the question of deciding this application before this Court.As a result of the decision of the Board (P7), the subsequent stepswere taken under section 15A (2) of the Act and thereafterproceedings before the Board were initiated and the Board madeits order on 28.3.92 (vide 10). Against this order an appeal wasmade by the petitioners-petitioners to the Wakfs Tribunal. The Tribunalby its order dated 30.6.92 (P13) dismissed the said appeal. After theorder of the Tribunal, steps have been taken under section 15A (3)of the Wakfs Act. Thereafter the present application for revision wasmade by the petitioners. Thus it could be seen that the order dated28.12.91 which was not an issue in CA 780/88 and SCLA 29/91 is
Sri Lanka Law Reports
 1 Sri LR.
the main issue which gave rise to subsequent proceedings beforethe Tribunal and thereafter in the Magistrate's Court of Gampaha.As far as the aforesaid matters are concerned, the question of ResJudicata does not arise, and therefore this Court is not precludedfrom deciding matters arising out of P7, to P13, and also regardingthe proceedings initiated before the Magistrate's Court of Gampaha.
After a careful consideration of all the material facts andsubmissions placed before this Court, I am of the view that out ofthe reliefs claimed by the petitioners, this Court is able to grant thereliefs (a) to (d) and (I) of the prayer to the petition.
In so far as prayer (e) is concerned, this Court is of the viewthat upon consideration of all the available material facts before thisCourt, the selection or nomination of Trustees to this mosque hasbeen by the Sheik of Beruwela as a practice for a considerable periodof time and therefore it is not proper for this Court at this stage tointerfere with such practice and to make any other order directingthat fresh appointment of Trustees should be made taking intoconsideration the wishes of the members of the Jamath of themosque. No doubt according to regulation 42 of the Gazette dated29.3.85, the words " by the Jamath " are added to section 14 (1)(a)of the principal Act. As a result there appears to be a conflict betweenthe provisions of section 14 (1)(a) of the Act and the aforesaidregulation 42. After the said regulation has been published in theGazette, section 14 (1)(a) has not been amended to include thewords " by the Jamath “. The result is the provisions of section14 (1)(a) stand unchanged. This Court is of the view that when thereis a conflict between the provisions of a Statute and the provisionsof a regulation published in a Gazette, the former prevails over thelatter. Hence, section 14 (1)(a) of the Wakfe Act, prevails overregulation 42 of the said Gazette. For these reasons the reliefprayed for in paragraph (e) of the prayer to the petitioner is herebynot granted by this Court.
As herein before mentioned there are exceptional circumstances,which warrant the exercise of the extraordinary powers of this Court.Hence I hereby grant reliefs claimed in paragraphs (a) to (d) and(fj of the prayer to the petition. Therefore the resulting positionis, that neither the petitioners-petitioners nor the respondents-respondents be regarded as the duly appointed Trustees of this
Jayatilleke v. Chandralatha
mosque. The mosque will not have its duly appointed Trustees fora short period. But this can be remedied by resorting to section14 (1) of the Act. As it appears to this Court, that the practice ofthis mosque has been, that Sheik of Beruwela to select or nominatethe Trustees, this Court is of the view that such practice mayhenceforth be carried out by him (Sheik of Beruwela). Thereafter theWakfs Board is entited to act in terms of section 14 (1)(a) of theAct.
For the reasons stated above, acting in revision, I grant theaforesaid reliefs claimed by the petitioners-petitioners in their petition,but I make no order with regard to costs.
HALWAN AND OTHERS v. RAHAMAN AND OTHERS