SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 5128

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
A. Ali Akbar – Appellant
Versus
The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board – Respondent
C.R.P. No. 93 of 2025, C.M.P. No. 807 of 2025
Decided On : 28-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Nissar Ahmed, I. Kowser Nissar
For the Respondents: Yasmin Ali, Raja Mohamed

The court reaffirmed the necessity for the Waqf Board to address complaints swiftly regarding trustees and upheld the process for appeal against removals, ensuring adherence to statutory provisions.

Headnote:(A) Waqf Act, 1995 - Sections 38, 64, and 68 - Civil revision petition against removal of managing trustee of two religious institutions and appointment of Executive Officer - Waqf Tribunal dismissed the stay petition, leading to this revision challenging that order. (Para 8, 12, 44)

(B) Administrative authority's duty - It is noted that the Waqf Board must act promptly in addressing complaints against its trustees to protect Waqf property and funds and should not delay proceedings unduly. (Paras 22, 23)

(C) Jurisdictional issues - The question of maintainability of the civil revision petition was addressed, emphasizing the need for clarity on the rights of parties in matters of Waqf management and authority. (Paras 16, 42)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a managing trustee of two Dargahs, faced complaints leading to an enquiry and subsequent removal by the Waqf Board, creating a controversy over procedural validity and rights to appeal against such removal.

Findings of Court:
The Waqf Tribunal found the Board's actions valid but recognized the need for swift resolution regarding the appeal related to the committee's management and allegations against the petitioner.

Issues: The primary issues concern the legal validity of the petitioner's removal under the Waqf Act, the appropriate procedures for appeal to the Waqf Tribunal, and the Board's accountability.

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified the responsibilities of the Waqf Board in managing complaints and enforced a statutory right of appeal for the petitioner, ruling that ambiguity regarding appeals must not prejudice outcomes.

Result: Civil revision petition dismissed. No costs.

Table of Content
1. facts regarding the election of committee members. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. procedural steps following allegations. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. writ petition and appeal process. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. tribunal's assessment of the situation. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. arguments regarding procedural lapses. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. continued management by removed mutawalli. (Para 18 , 26)
7. observations on waqf board's delay. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
8. commentary on waqf board's duties. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
9. legal distinctions between mutawalli and executive officer. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)
10. powers related to the management of waqf. (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
11. removal process and related legal statutes. (Para 33 , 36 , 39)
12. establishment of facts based on records. (Para 40 , 41)
13. timeline and directives for procedural compliance. (Para 42 , 43)

ORDER :

1. This civil revision petition challenges the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal at Chennai in CMP.No.17 of 2024 in AA.No.4 of 2024 dated 23.12.2024.

2. The appellant before the Waqf Tribunal is the civil revision petitioner herein. He is the managing trustee of the Mohideen Andavar, Puradhana Dargah and Pallivasal, and Mina Noordeen Puradhana Dargah and Pallivasal, Therkuvasal, Madurai.

3. In terms of the scheme, which governs the two religious institutions, an election is to be held to elect the members to the Committee of management. Totally 20 posts are available in the Committee. An election was held and the petitioner was declared elected along with 19 other persons. The newly impleaded fourth respondent is one such person. The period of office is three years i.e., between 11.09.2022 and 10.09.2025.

4. A complaint was lodged by the fourth respondent with the Waqf Board, on 20.04.2023, alleging certain acts of commission and omission by the civil revision petitioner. According to the fourth respondent, the acts alleged to have been committed by the civil revision petitioner attract the provisions of Section 64 of the WAQF ACT . As enquiry on this complaints was not commenced by the Waqf Board, a writ petition was filed before this Court. An order came to be passed directing the Waqf Board to conduct an enquiry and pass orders.

5. Accordingly, on 23.08.2023, an enquiry was conducted. Thereafter, the Waqf Board decided to conduct a personal inspection of the Waqfs. The Chairman and four other members, together with the Chief Executive Officer of the Board, conducted an inspection on 03.09.2023. Pursuant to the inspection on 27.10.2023, the Chief Executive Officer submitted a report. On the basis of the Chief Executive Officer's report, a fresh enquiry was conducted by the Waqf Board on 31.10.2023. During the course of enquiry, the civil revision petitioner participated. He was also represented by a counsel. On 27.11.2023, the Waqf Board decided that prima facie, the acts of the petitioner attract Section 64 and directed issuance of a show cause notice.

6. The Waqf Board issued show cause notices on 06.02.2024 to the concerned parties. Replies were sent on 23.02.2024. In addition, to find out the current state of affairs, the Superintendent of Waqf, Madurai was called upon to submit a report on 18.04.2024. The Local Fund Audit, during the course of its duties, submitted a report on 02.05.2024. A reply was given by the office bearers on 06.05.2024 to the report submitted by the Superintendent of Waqf. The Waqf Board took up the matter for enquiry again on 02.07.2024. The Local Fund Audit's report was considered and a copy was also given to the civil revision petitioner. He was granted two weeks time to file a reply. Though the time to file the reply expired on 15.07.2024, his reply dated 18.07.2024 was received by the Waqf Board.

7. Final arguments in the show cause notice and reply were made on 15.10.2024. On that date, the petitioner was represented by Mr.N.A.Nassir Hussain. It was pointed out by Mr.N.A.Nassir Hussain that even when the notice of hearing was served on the peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top