The court confirmed that the presence of public offerings through hundiyals characterizes a Wakf as public, affirming the Wakf Board's jurisdiction despite claims of it being private.

ORDER :

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

The Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the 1^st respondent to conduct enquiry regarding administration of Sayeedani Bi Dargah situated at S.No.167/2, Dindivanam Road, Vandavaasi Town, Thiruvannamalai District and to take appropriate action to bring the Wakf under the direct Management of the Wakf Board by considering the petitioner's representation dated 27.02.2023.

2. According to the petitioner, the Sayeedani Bi Dargah is a registered and notified Wakf under the supervisory control of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board. It is claimed by the petitioner that he is a worshipper of the Wakf and Jamathar and hence, he is a person interested in the Wakf.

3. It is not in dispute that as per the proforma, Wakf is administered by Mutawalli, whose office is Hereditary. It was claimed by the petitioner that Wakf is a renowned Dargah, having worshippers coming from several places and the Wakf gets huge contribution from the General Public. It is also claimed that the funds of the Wakf are not properly accounted and the same is mismanaged by the persons in Management of the Wakf. Accordingly, he submitted a representation dated 27.02.2023 before the 1^st respondent and the same was not considered. Hence, he has filed this writ petition.

4. It is not in dispute that earlier my predecessor passed an order directing the 1^st respondent to get a sworn affidavit from the petitioner regarding the alleged mismanagement and conduct an enquiry in the manner contemplated under Section 71 of the WAKF ACT . Later, upon the application filed by the 2^nd respondent in W.M.P.No.5208 of 2024, my predecessor held that order passed by him in the main writ petition deserved to be recalled as it was passed without hearing the 2^nd respondent and allowed the petition to recall the order. Therefore, the writ petition is again restored to the file and the 2^nd respondent was impleaded in the main writ petition and it is being posted for rehearing.

5. After impleadment, the 2^nd respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the above said Dargah/Wakf is a private one and Waqf Board has got no jurisdiction over the same.

6. It is mainly contended by the 2^nd respondent that one A.Shoukath Ali, who was also an office bearer of Dargah misused his position and embezzled the money from the hundiyals and threatened the office bearers that he would approach the 1^st respondent to create commotion and confusion concerning the Dargah. It was claimed by the 2^nd respondent that on 09.08.1987, the said A.Shoukath Ali entered Dargah and had stolen two hundiyals, cupboard keys, and account books etc. Therefore, the Management of the Dargah including the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.167 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court at Vandavasi against the said A.Shoukath Ali seeking injunction from interfering with the functioning of the Dargah. The said suit was decreed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant therein A.Shoukath Ali had filed an appeal in A.S.No.44 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Cheyyar. The Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the said A.Shoukath Ali preferred second appeal in S.A.No.962 of 2015 before this Court and the same was dismissed. However, the injunction granted in favour of the Wakf was restricted till the registration of the Wakf before the 1^st respondent. Against the restriction imposed by this Court, the 2^nd respondent approached the Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition in S.L.P.N