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.

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Writs more appropriately a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings F.N0.O7/T/ATP/2OI 1/Z-IV/Supple dated 26.12.2025 issued by the respondent N0.2 to 4 appointing the respondent Nos. 5 to 8 as Mutawallies of the Wakf Institution i.e., Ashurkhana and its attached properties situated at Govindawada Village, Bommanahall Mandal, Anantapur District, A.P., under section 63 of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995 for a period of two (2) years and rejecting the application of the petitioner for the appointment of Mutawalli vide Intimation proceedings F.N0.O7/T/ATP/2OI 1/Z-IV/Supply dated 26.12.2025 contrary to the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer as per the direction of the Learned Wakf Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 17 of 2014 dated 08.02.2017 as illegal, void, ultra virus, without jurisdiction, unconstitutional and contraiy to the section 27, 32, 42, 63 and 65 of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995 and also in violations of principles of Natural Justice and consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice and equity.

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. MD ABDUL MATEEN QURESHI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. MASALEGAR HIDAYATHULLA

2. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

3. SHAIK KHAJA BASHA

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

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.

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.

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.

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