2009 Supreme(Mad) 529
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
K.M. Jalaludeen & Others
Versus
The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, rep. by its Secretary & Others
W.P.No.5406 of 2004
Decided on: 12-02-2009
For the Petitioners:V. Selvaraj, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, V. Lakshminarayanan, R3, N.G.R. Prasad, R. Malaichamy, Advocates.
The duty of the Wakf Board to ensure proper maintenance and administration of wakfs, and the validity of the impugned order in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Conduct of Election - O.S.No.57/1951, Sec.32 of Wakfs Act - The court discussed the scheme decree in O.S.No.57/1951, the powers and functions of the Wakf Board under Sec.32 of the Wakfs Act, and the direction for conduct of election by secret ballot. The court emphasized the duty of the Board to ensure proper maintenance and administration of wakfs, and the validity of the impugned order in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute relates to the conduct of the election of Sankarankovil Muslim Jamath Executive Committee, whether by secret ballot or by raising of hands. The Wakf Board passed an order to conduct the election by secret ballot, which was challenged in the Writ Petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was valid and in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It appointed an Election Observer to supervise and conduct the election by secret ballot for the Sankarankovil Muslim Jamath Executive Committee.
Issues: The issues involved the mode of conducting the election, compliance with the scheme decree in O.S.No.57/1951, and the powers and functions of the Wakf Board under Sec.32 of the Wakfs Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of the Board to ensure proper maintenance and administration of wakfs, and the validity of the impugned order in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was disposed of with the appointment of an Election Observer to supervise and conduct the election by secret ballot for the Sankarankovil Muslim Jamath Executive Committee.
Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorari to quash the orders of the 1st Respondent dated 012. 2003.
2. The issue relates to conduct of election of Sankarankovil Muslim Jamath Executive Committee. The dispute relates to conduct of election whether by secret ballot or by raising of hands.
3. There has been a scheme decree passed by the Sub-Court, Tuticorin in O.S.No.57/1951 for the management of Periapalli Vasal at Sankarankovil. Executive Committee has been functioning from 1973. Muslim members of 18 years and above of the Muslim community in Sankarankovil area will constitute the voters to the General Body of the Committee. These members shall be the electorate to elect from among themselves the members of the Managing Committee.
4. Hitherto the election was conducted to the Committee by raising of hands under the supervision and direction of the President of the Committee. Successful candidate was to be announced by the President then and there and this was in vogue for more than three decades.
5. First Petitioner in the Writ Petition was elected as President of the Executive Committee for the first time during 1993. Thereafter, first Petitioner continued to be the President of the Committee.
.6. Third Respondent who is the resident of Sankarankovil and also one of the members of Muslim Committee of Sunnath Jamath of Sankarankovil sent a complaint dated 13. 2003 bringing it to the notice of the first Respondent – Wakf Board about the illegal functioning of the Committee. Third Respondent had made out certain allegations against the first Petitioner – President of the Committee and that he has mismanaged and misappropriated the funds of the Committee and was functioning in an undemocratic manner.
7. Based on the above objection, a report was called for from the Wakf Inspector, Tenkasi who submitted his report dated 15. 2003. In his report, Wakf Inspector has stated that the selection of the Committee for the Walf is done by raising of hands and it has to be changed by secret ballot system. Wakf Inspector pointed out that the Committee does not submit the accounts as per bye-laws of the scheme and first Petitioner – President has collected huge amount from the Jamath and no proper accounts were shown.
8. By considering the report of Wakf Inspector, first Respondent – Wakf Board passed the impugned order dated 012. 2003 by resolving that the election for the Executive Committee shall be by secret ballot system which is challenged in this Writ Petition. After filing of the Writ Petition, third Respondent was impleaded.
9. Challenging the impugned order, the learned counsel for the Petitioner firstly contended that the President / first Petitioner was not heard before passing the order dated 012. 2003.
10. Insofar as, the first contention is concerned, a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the first Petitioner was given notice of enquiry and that first Petitioner had also sent his written objection. The impugned order refers to the written objection of the first Petitioner wherein he has denied the allegations levelled against him. In his objection, first Petitioner has also stated that as per the scheme decree, election of the office bearers has to be made only by raising of hands. When the first Petitioner had sent written objection, he is not right in contending that he was not afforded an opportunity. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the Respondents, it comes to be known that number of hearings were conducted by the first Respondent. Out of which three hearings were attended by the President, Joint Secretary and their Advocates. In such circumstances, the question of non-servicing of notice or violation of principles of natural justice does not merit acceptance.
.11. Second contention of the Petitioner is that they are governed by scheme decree in O.S.No.57/1951. According to the Petitioner as per the scheme decree, election of the office bearers has to be made by raise of hands and th