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 management is exclusively vested in the board. In view of the same, the petitioner prays for quashing of the impugned order.

3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that the writ petition is not maintainable both on law and facts. The petitioner having statutory alternative remedy of filing appeal before the Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal under Section 83 of the Waqf Act cannot seek to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. He further submitted that Kuthba Prayer Mosque alias Meerasa Andavar Pallivasal, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari coming within the supervisory control of Tamil Nadu Waqf Board. The administration of the Waqf is made by a management committee of 12 members, which is elected for a period of once in three years and the tenure of the committee approved by the board expired long back on

01.10.2013. It is now understood that Waqf is being managed by unapproved committee for all these years and hence, by the proceedings, dated 26.10.2021 in Proc.No.10732/B1/21/KK had directed the Superintendent of Waqf, Tirunelveli to assume charges of the above Waqf as per the Tamil Nadu Waqf Boards Special Resolution No.5, dated 14.06.1990. As per the said resolution, any approval granted for a Committee/Muthawalli to administer the management shall automatically expire after the period prescribed in it unless it is extended by the board. When that being so, the petitioner claims to be in management without the approval and authorization of the Waqf board.

This being so, the petitioner is only squatting on the Waqf illegally.

4. He further referred to W.P(MD)Nos.2170 and 6457 of 2011, the validity of Special Resolution No.5/1990 was tested and declared valid and also further gave the report to the Waqf Board to enforce the resolution against the person, who are in the management of Waqf institution if their tenure has expired. He further submitted that the Waqf Board does take sides, it is only for the better and proper management depending upon the situation, such orders passed. He further submitted that the affidavit is filed on behalf of the Chairman by the Chief Executive Officer to confirm Chairman approves the decision taken by the Special Resolution No.5 of Waqf Board, dated

14.06.1990. He further submits that the petitioner is willing for election and hand over the Waqf to the newly elected office bearers. For the purpose of proper conduct of election, the Waqf authorities step in and the election results are forwarded to the Waqf board to get approval.

5. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent submits that the petitioner is holding on to the Waqf from the year 2013 without the approval of the Waqf board. Further, the imam appointed by the petitioner group is propagating for the petitioner and creating unholy atmosphere and