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) 5041

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
A. Ali Akbar – Petitioner
Versus
The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer and Ors. – Respondents
C.R.P. No.93 of 2025 & CMP. No.807 of 2025
Decided On : 28-01-2025 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nissar Ahmed, Senior Counsel, Mr. I. Kowser Nissar.
For the Respondents: Ms. Yasmin Ali, Mr. Raja Mohamed.

The Waqf Board has the authority to remove a Mutawalli under the Waqf Act and appoint an Executive Officer in the interest of the Waqf, affirming the integrity of procedural statutory provisions.

Headnote:(A) Waqf Act, 1995 - Sections 38, 64, and 68 - Civil revision petition challenging the validity of the removal of a managing trustee and appointment of an Executive Officer - The Waqf Board has authority to remove a Mutawalli under Section 64 and appoint an Executive Officer under Section 38 in the interest of the Waqf - Appeal against removal under Section 64(1)(k) deemed unsustainable if not within specified provisions - Orders of the Waqf Tribunal pertaining to the removal of Mutawalli and management thereafter found valid on prima facie basis - Court emphasized the obligation of the Waqf Board to act promptly on allegations; however, the removal under statutory provisions is upheld. (Paras 28, 39, 44)

(B) Interlocutory orders - The scope of interference in interlocutory orders is limited; must show orders are illegal, arbitrary, or ignore statutory provisions. (Paras 20, 21)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, managing trustee of two Dargahs, was removed by the Waqf Board following complaints of misconduct, leading to a civil revision petition challenging this removal and the Waqf Tribunal's rulings.

Findings of Court:
The court found the Waqf Board acted within its authority in removing the trustee and appointing an Executive Officer, and noted the necessity of prompt action in allegations of mismanagement.

Issues: The primary issues revolved around the validity of the removal process, the applicability of statutory provisions for appeal, and the actions taken by the Waqf Board in managing the Waqf.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that the Waqf Board is obligated to act swiftly against allegations of mismanagement and that statutory procedures were followed in the removal of the Mutawalli and the appointment of an Executive Officer.

Result: Civil revision petition dismissed.

ORDER :

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

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 petitioner, he had made an endorsement on the notice stating that Urs festival for the Durgah has to be held between 04.10.2024 and 17.10.2024 and therefore, a request for adjournment was sought. He further added as his client is a managing trustee of the two Durgahs and since the Urs is going to be completed only on 17.10.2024, he sought for adjournment. The Waqf Board, considering the fact, the proceedings had been initiated sometime in August 2023, rejected the request for adjournment and proceeded to reserve orders in the matter. Subsequently, the Waqf Board passed an order and dated it, on the date on which arguments were heard i.e, on 15.10.2024.

8. This order was served on the civil revision petitioner and other Mutawallis. By virtue of the order, the committee was removed and the Waqf Board assumed direct managemen

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