1. Petitions challenge a government order nominating members to a statutory board in supersession of previous notifications regarding the constitution of the board. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 67770
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S. Manu, J
K.S. Hamza – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 36037 OF 2026(D)|W.P(C)No.36041 of 2026
Important Points
The power of the State Government to appoint members to the Waqf Board includes the implied power to cancel those appointments to ensure the Board's constitution complies with statutory requirements.
Subject
Administrative Law - Statutory Bodies
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Waqf Board - Constitution - Power of State Government - The power to appoint members to the Board includes the implied power to cancel such appointments to ensure the Board is constituted in accordance with statutory requirements. (Para 10)
(B) Administrative Law - Interim Relief - Stay of Government Order - A stringent interim order staying the reconstitution of a statutory board is not warranted where the government acts within its implied powers and there is no specific judicial restraint preventing such action. (Para 9, 11)
Issues: Whether the State Government possesses the implied power to cancel appointments and reconstitute the Waqf Board without strictly invoking the removal procedures under Sections 20 or 99 of the Act.
Result: Interim stay rejected; matter adjourned to Division Bench.
(B) Administrative Law - Interim Relief - Stay of Government Order - A stringent interim order staying the reconstitution of a statutory board is not warranted where the government acts within its implied powers and there is no specific judicial restraint preventing such action. (Para 9, 11)
Issues: Whether the State Government possesses the implied power to cancel appointments and reconstitute the Waqf Board without strictly invoking the removal procedures under Sections 20 or 99 of the Act.
Result: Interim stay rejected; matter adjourned to Division Bench.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. Chandrasekhar, Manu V., Anand Sankar, Farhana Kabeer
For the Respondents:Additional Advocate General, Government Pleader, Standing Counsel
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. Chandrasekhar, Manu V., Anand Sankar, Farhana Kabeer
For the Respondents:Additional Advocate General, Government Pleader, Standing Counsel
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners allege illegality and lack of power in superseding board notifications, while the state contends the action rectifies statutory non-compliance using inherent powers of appointment. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. The court observed that previous judicial orders did not restrict the state from re-constituting the board in accordance with law and that power to appoint inherently includes cancellation. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. The power of the state to appoint members to a statutory body inherently includes the power of cancellation or revocation of those appointments. (Para 10 )
5. The court rejected the request for a stay on the government order, directed that the reconstitution remain subject to the writ petition outcome, and referred the case. (Para 11 , 12 )
6. Does the power to appoint members to a statutory board carry an implied power to cancel such appointments?
Yes, when an authority is vested with the power to appoint, it maintains the inherent or implied power to cancel or revoke said appointments, even in the absence of specific statutory provisions for removal in certain contexts. (Para 10 )
7. Can the government reconstitute a statutory board pending public interest litigation if no specific interdiction exists?
Yes, provided the state continues to act in accordance with the law and relevant statutory requirements, the absence of a specific restraint order from a court allows the state to proceed with reconstitution to fulfill legal mandates. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be pleased to stay the operation of and all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P9,pending disposal of the writ petition(civil).
This petition coming on for admission upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and upon hearing the arguments of P.CHANDRASEKHAR, MANU V., ANAND SANKAR, FARHANA KABEER Advocates for the petitioners and of ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL and GOVERNMENT PLEADER for respondent 1 and of STANDING COUNSEL for respondent 2, the court passed the following:
S.MANU, J.
Dated this the 17th day of October, 2026
ORDER
WP(C)No.36037 of 2026
Admit.
2. Learned Additional Advocate General appeared for the State of Kerala and the learned Government Pleader accepted notice. Learned Standing Counsel appeared and accepted notice for respondent No.2.
3. Issue notice by speed post to respondents 3 to 11 returnable within two weeks.
W.P(C)No.36041 of 2026
Admit.
2. Notice for the Union of India is accepted by the learned CGC on behalf of the Additional Solicitor General for India. Learned Additional Advocate General appeared for the State of Kerala and the learned Government Pleader accepted notice. Learned Standing Counsel appeared and accepted notice for respondent No.3.
3. Issue notice by speed post to respondents 4 to 12 returnable within two weeks.
WP(C)No.36037 of 2026 & W.P(C)No.36041 of 2026
These writ petitions have been brought up at the special sitting, seeking immediate intervention by this Court. Interim relief sought in both writ petitions is for an order of stay of operation of Ext.P9, G.O.(P)No.318/2026/RD (SRO No.874/ 2026) dated 16.10.2026, by which Government of Kerala nominated nine members to the Kerala State Waqf Board in supersession of Exts.P1 and P2 notifications.
2. As the issue arising for consideration is common, the plea for interim relief is being dealt with by a common order. Reference to exhibits are as they are appended to
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P(C)No.36041 of 2026 assailed the impugned order and sought stay of operation of it by raising various contentions. He submitted that validity of Ext.P1 notification, nominating nine members to the State Waqf Board is under challenge before a Division Bench of this Court in four Public Interest Litigations (PIL). It was pointed out that the Division Bench has passed some orders in the PILs finding prima facie merit in the contention that constitution of the Waqf Board by Ext.P1 was not in tune with Section 14 of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995 (‘Act’ for short). He made reference to the interdiction imposed by the Division Bench by order dated 15.07.2026 pertaining to policy decisions and incurring of capital expenditure. He also pointed out that the Division Bench, in the order dated 19.08.2026 had mentioned about the submission made on behalf of the State that steps had been initiated to conduct determination contemplated under Sub Section (6) of Section 14 of the Act and expressed hope that the State would be taking steps for filling up the vacancies. He further contended that the Government had submitted before the Division Bench and gave the impression to the Court that its intention was only to fill up the vacancies in conformity with Section 14 of the Act. He hence contended that the Court has been taken for a ride by the Government with issuance of Ext.P9. Further the learned Senior Counsel submitted that Ext.P9 has been issued in utter disregard to the provisions of the Act. He made reference to Sections 14, 15, 16, 20 and 99 of the Act specifically and submitted that no power is vested with the State Government to reconstitute the Board, in the manner it has been done now. He contended that power to supersede the Board available in Section 99 of the Act can be exercised only if the specific conditions ment
