State Minority Commission Can’t Order Eviction Bypassing Civil Court’s Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court was dealing with a matter where the Commission had overstepped its jurisdiction by directing the petitioner's eviction.
Justice Easwaran S., Kerala High Court
While referring to the Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act, 2014, the Kerala High Court has clarified that clause (c) of Section 9 cannot confer jurisdiction on the Commission to evict a person belonging to a minority community, bypassing the jurisdiction of a civil court.
The High Court was dealing with a matter where the Commission had overstepped its jurisdiction by instructing the revenue authorities as well as the police authorities to take steps to evict the petitioner.
The Single Bench of Justice Easwaran S. held, “This Court is unable to subscribe to the above contention for the simple reason that, clause (c) of Section 9 cannot confer jurisdiction on the Commission to evict a person belonging to a minority community bypassing the jurisdiction of a civil court. Clause (e) of Section 9 delineates the power of the Commission and makes it clear that it has power only to make recommendations to the Government on the subjects mentioned therein.”
“Section 11 provides that the State Government shall cause reports referred to under clause (e) of Section 9 to be laid before the Legislative Assembly explaining the action taken or proposed to be taken thereon or reasons if any for non-acceptance of the recommendations. Therefore, it is beyond one’s comprehension as to how the first respondent proceeded to consider the complaint and pass orders on the same. Such exercise is certainly colourable and liable to interfered with”, it added.
Advocate Luke J Chirayil represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Jibu P Thomas represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The Petitioner claimed that despite the two sale deeds executed in favour of the second respondent, he continued to be in occupation of the residential property covered by the said documents and further alleged that the documents were executed by exerting undue influence and fraud. The second respondent invoked the jurisdiction of the Kerala State Minority Commission (first respondent) by filing an application praying that action be taken to evict the petitioner from the residential property.
The Commission passed an order directing the eviction of the petitioner from the premises and issued a communication to the official respondents to take such action for evicting the petitioner. Accordingly, the fourth respondent issued a notice requiring the petitioner to vacate the premises. The second respondent asserted that the Commission had the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and order eviction of the petitioner from the property, but he was unable to show any such specific provision under the Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act, 2014.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, explained that the Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act, 2014, was enacted to constitute a State Commission for the comprehensive educational advancement, welfare, protection and empowerment of Minorities and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Bench stated, “A reading of the Preamble of the Act would clearly show the purpose of establishment of the Commission. Read as may, this Court could not find any such power which would enable the first respondent to pass orders in the nature of Ext.P4. Ideally, the first respondent ought to have desisted from entertaining complaint in the nature of Ext P3.”
As per the Bench, the extent of overstepping of the jurisdiction of the Commissioner was evident from the fact that the Commissioner had gone ahead and instructed the revenue authorities as well as the police authorities to take such steps to evict the petitioner. “The aforesaid action is clearly without jurisdiction and hence void and liable to be interfered with by this Court”, it added.
The Bench thus allowed the writ petition and held that the application was not maintainable before the Commission. Directing that the petitioner be put in possession of the property, the Bench clarified, “It is made clear that the second respondent is at liberty to approach the competent civil court for getting back the possession of the property.”
Cause Title: Moideenkutty v. The Kerala State Minority Commission (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:33579)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Luke J Chirayil, Zainudheen P., Chithra C. Edadan, Jacob Victor, Neha Ramakrishnan, A.R. Thejas Krishna, Aswanth S. P.
Respondent: Advocates Jibu P Thomas, Nagraj Narayanan, Saijo Hassan, Rajesh Babu T., Bappu Galib Salam, Aliya Muhammed Shaduli, Sneha Sabu