The Chief Executive Officer of a Wakf must issue notifications for appointments made by the Wakf Board unless serious allegations of moral turpitude are present against individuals selected.

ORDER :

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent namely, the Chief Executive Officer to pass the consequential executive order in furtherance of the resolution, dated 16.07.2025 passed by the first respondent.

2. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, the grievance of the petitioner is that the Adirampatnam Madarasatul Salahifi Aththarameel Falahi @ MKN Madarasa Wakf is a registered wakf functioning under the first respondent. There is a scheme, under which, the Muthavallis and the other office bearers, to administer the trust, have to be appointed. While so, the Wakf Board considered the appointment of Muthavallis in the year 2025 for the ensuing term of three years and passed a resolution on 16.07.2025 appointing the Muthavallis. The second respondent, under the scheme of the Wakf Act, 1995, has no other option than to issue a notification executing the resolution of the Wakf Board. On the contrary, he had chosen to refer the matter to the Government under Section 26 of the Wakf Act. The reconsideration or referring the matter under does not arise in this case at all. In this case, when the Wakf Board had passed earlier resolution on 21.03.2025 and when the second respondent had reservations in respect of some appointments and requested the Wakf Board to again reconsider the matter, the Wakf Board having reiterated its resolution after reconsideration, thereafter, there is no scope for referring the matter to the Government.

3. It is the contention that a reading of Section 26 of the Wakf Act makes it clear that if only the resolution is not confirmed by a majority of votes, persons, including the petitioner, had applied for appointment and whoever has to be appointed, their rights are being violated and the administration of the wakf is being put to jeopardy on account of the same.Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The Writ Petition is resisted on behalf of the respondents. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents placed on record the relevant documents. According to the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, the administration of the present wakf is to be carried out by the male heirs of the founder’s family. Since the founder died without leaving heirs, his brothers and their heirs continued the management. Later, a scheme was framed by the District Court, Thanjavur in O.S.No.21 of 1952, which was amended from time to time. After coming into force of the Wakf Act, 1995, the Wakf Board is their scheme Court. In W.P. (MD).No.15524 of 2012, the Wakf Board was also directed to appoint the trustees in accordance with directives and the Civil Court scheme.Thereafter, further directions were also given.

5. In compliance thereof, the Wakf Board, by the resolution, dated 12.06.2017, appointed six hereditary trustees and three non- hereditary trustees and the consequential proceedings of the Chief Executive Officer, dated 13.06.2017, were also issued. Upon expiry of the tenure, new persons were also appointed on 23.02.2021. The selection made was subject matter of litigation and by that time, the matter came up for the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The tenure itself was over and as such, a new notification was issued on 02.07.2024. In compliance thereof, the issue was considered by the Wakf Board and it passed a resolution on 21.03.2025 selecting the persons from each plan as per the scheme and two persons namely, A.Faizal Ahmed and A.H.Iqbal, from the first branch, M.Abdul Hadhi and A.M.S.Shihabudhin, from the second branch, U.Naina Mohamed and S.Mohamed Meera Sahib, from the third branch and from the fourth branch/general section, S.Ni