ORDER :

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to administer the Mohideen Jumma Pallivasal Wakf, Sambankulam, till a newly elected administrative committee of the Wakf takes over in light of the order dated 20.12.2011 made by this Court in W.P(MD) No.14276 of 2011.

The common issue that arises for consideration in this batch of Writ Petitions and Civil Revision Petition is whether the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”), as defined under Section 3(c) and incorporated under Section 13 of the WAKF ACT , 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) or the Chief Executive Officer (hereinafter referred to as “CEO”) appointed under Section 23 of the Act has the authority/power to hold/control elections to individual Wakfs/auqafs or interfere with electoral issues in terms of the provisions of the Act.

2. Brief Facts:

Before proceeding to deal with the issue/question which is common it may be relevant to give an overview of the facts that may be relevant.

2.1 WP (MD) Nos. 24058 of 2018 and 13695 of 2020:

The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.24058 of 2018 is filed challenging the impugned notification in Na.Ka.No.G.S.26/Va.Ka./P.A/Thi.Veli/2018 dated 16.11.2018 issued by the Superintendent of Wakf, the 2nd Respondent herein. The Petitioner herein is a resident and member of Mohideen Jumma Pallivasal, Sambankulam. The said Pallivasal/Masjid is a Wakf notified under Section 5 of the WAKF ACT 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The above Wakf was administered by a body comprising of President and 14 other office bearers who were nominated/selected by the General Body/Jamath. It was submitted that the practice (custom), was to appoint Mutawalli in the form of administrative body “by selection and not by election”. It was submitted that the Wakf Board i.e., the 1st Respondent in this Writ Petition had also approved such selection till date. While so, the 2nd Respondent/Superintendent had issued the impugned election notification stated to be on the basis of/pursuant to a letter issued by the Chief Executive Officer the 1st Respondent herein dated 04.06.2018. It was notified that election for a 15 member administrative committee (Mutawalli) through secret ballot would be conducted for the said Wakf. The impugned notification also provided that the electoral college would be finalised by the 2nd Respondent, while laying down the rules for such election. A counter is filed by the 2nd Respondent stating that he is bound by the orders/directions of the 1st Respondent and that conducting elections is necessary to resolve the conflict/difference between two groups. It is submitted that the definition of Mutawalli includes any person appointed according to custom and the appointment to the subject Wakf being governed by Custom, there is no authority/power with the Wakf Board to depart from the custom much less conduct the election changing the mode of appointment from Selection to Election. In view of the same the impugned notification was challenged.

During the pendency of the above writ petition, another Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No. 13695 of 2020 was filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st Respondent Board to permit the petitioner to administer the subject Wakf till a newly elected administrative committee takes charge while submitting that the Respondents are acting in excess/without jurisdiction in proposing to conduct elections to the Wakf, moreso, as it is contrary to the practice of appointing the Administrative Committee/Mutawalli by selection.

2.2. W.P. (MD) No. 11081 of 2018

The Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order of the 2nd Respondent dated 08.02.2018 whereby pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P.(MD). No.6864 of 2017 dated 21.09.2017 and on the basis of a representation dated 13.03.2017 submitted by the 4th Respondent, the CEO had ordered conduc