Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(AP) 904

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J.
Mulla Sarmas Vali, S/O. Late Mr. Mulla Mohammed Hussain - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary, Minority Welfare Department - Respondent
Writ Petition No.3259 of 2026
Decided On : 24-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Md Abdul Mateen Qureshi
For the Respondent: Masalegar Hidayathulla, Gp For Social Welfare, Shaik Khaja Basha

The Waqf Board cannot delegate its power to appoint or remove Mutawallis, whether permanent or temporary, as such powers are explicitly excluded from delegation under Section 27 read with Section 32(2)(g) of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995.

Headnote:(A) Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995 - Sections 27, 32(2)(g), 42, 63 - Delegation of power - Appointment of Mutawalli - The Waqf Board lacks the authority to delegate the power to appoint or remove a Mutawalli because Section 27 of the Act expresses an exception for powers mentioned in Section 32(2)(g). The literal rule of interpretation prevents the Board from delegating functions related to the appointment of both permanent and temporary Mutawallis. (Paras 6, 9)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Alternative remedy - Existence of a statutory alternative remedy under Section 83(2) of the Act does not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly where the issue involves a pure question of law regarding statutory interpretation and no oral evidence is required. (Para 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged proceedings appointing the respondents as temporary Mutawallies, arguing that the Waqf Board acted in excess of its jurisdiction by delegating its power of appointment contrary to Section 27 of the Act. The respondents contended that the delegation was valid for temporary appointments and that the petitioner should have pursued an alternative remedy before the Waqf Tribunal under Section 83(2).

Findings of Court:
The court held that Section 27 of the Act explicitly carves out an exception regarding the power to appoint or remove Mutawallis as per Section 32(2)(g), and this exception applies to both permanent and temporary appointments. The impugned proceedings were set aside as being contrary to the Act.

Issues: Whether the Waqf Board is empowered under Section 27 of the Act to delegate the power of appointment of temporary Mutawallies to a subcommittee or other officers, and whether the writ petition is maintainable despite an alternative remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the literal rule of interpretation must be applied; therefore, since Section 27 prohibits the delegation of powers described in Section 32(2)(g), the Board cannot delegate the authority to appoint or remove a Mutawalli.

Result: Writ Petition allowed.

ORDER :

Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J.

Shorn of all necessary facts, the present Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the respondent No.3 in appointing the respondent Nos.5 to 8 as Mutawallies on the ground that the respondent No.2 has no power to delegate the powers, as outlined in Section 27 of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995 (for short, 'the Act') and, consequently, prayed to set aside the impugned proceedings dated 26.12.2025.

2. Respondent Nos.5 to 8 are appointed as temporary Mutawallies under Section 63 of the Act by the respondent No.3 on the delegation of the power by the respondent No.2 under section 27 of the Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that according to Section 27 of the Act, the Board may, by a general or special order in writing, delegate its power and duties under the Act, as it may deem necessary, 'except' the powers and functions of the Board mentioned under clauses (c), (d), (g) and (j) of sub-section (2) of Section 32 and Section 110 of the Act. Specifically, under Section 32(g) of the Act, the delegatee is not authorised to appoint or remove the Mutawalli in accordance with the provisions of the Act and also further contends that no disputed facts are present in this case and it is purely a jurisdictional issue present in the present Writ Petition, as such, this Court possess jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed to set aside the impugned proceedings.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents Sri S.M.Subhani, inter alia, would submit that respondent Nos.5 to 8 are appointed as temporary Mutawallies for a period of two years and there is no specific excluding provision incorporated under Section 27 of the Act and therefore the petitioner cannot invoke Section 27 of the Act, and there was no such intention in the mind of legislature. Had the legislature possessed such an intention, they would have been included Section 63 of the Act in Section 27 of the Act. As the appointment of the unofficial respondents was a temporary appointment made under Section 63 of the Act, the word ―except‖ in Section 27 of the Act is not applicable to Section 63 of the Act and also further stated that the disputed questions are involved in the present case and the petitioner has to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 83(2) of the Act. And it is further stated that an enquiry was conducted against the writ petitioner and it found that the writ petitioner has committed irregularities, this emerges disputed questions and that the petitioner should seek the jurisdiction under Section 83(2) of the Act. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Waqf Board would submit that the petitioner herein filed Writ of Mandamus, instead of Writ of Certiorari, therefore, he would submit that the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the said ground.

6. Heard Sri Md. Abdul Mateen Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Shaik Khaja Basha, learned Standing Counsel for the Waqf Board; and Sri S.M.Subhani, learned counsel representing Sri M.Hidayathulla, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 8.

7. Point for consideration: For effective disposal of the Writ Petition, the following provisions are hereby extracted hereunder:

"27. Delegation of powers by Board.—The Board may, by a general or special order in writing, delegate to the Chairperson, any other member, the Chief Executive Officer or any other officer or servant of the Board or any area committee, subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified in the said order, such of its powers and duties under this Act, as it may deem necessary, except the powers and functions of the Board mentioned under clauses (c), (d), (g) and (j) of sub-section (2) of section 32 and section 110.

32. Powers and functions of the Board––

xxxxxx

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(AP) 904

The Waqf Board cannot delegate its power to appoint or remove Mutawallis, whether permanent or temporary, as such powers are explicitly excluded from delegation under Section 27 read with Section 32(2)(g) of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995.

Cases Referred (2)