SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 17273

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR
MOHAMED MAHIN ABUBAEKAR.A – Appellant
Versus
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER – Respondent


ORDER

The petitioner is a Secretary of Kuthba Prayer Mosque alias Meerasa Andavar Pallivasal, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari challenging the impugned order in Proc.No.10732/B-1/21/KK, dated 26.10.2021 issued by the first respondent.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed by the first respondent without jurisdiction and is patently illegal. The power to assume direct management of a Waqf by the Board is vested exclusively in the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board under Section 65 of the Waqf Act. Further, referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P.Wakf Board Vs.Subhan Shah reported in (2006) 10 SCC 696, wherein, the same principle has been upheld. As per Section 65 of the Waqf Act, no suitable person is available for appointment as Muthawalli or where the Board is satisfied for the reasons to be recorded by the Board in writing that the filing up of vacancies in the office of the Muthawalli is prejudicial to the interest of the Waqf, the board may by a notification in the official Gazette, assume direct management for such period or periods not exceeding five years in the aggregate. Thus, the power to assume direct managemen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top