Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 30221

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
, J
civil revision petitioner – Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Waqf Board – Respondent
CMP.No.17 of 2024 | AA.No.4 of 2024 | CRP.No.48 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.N.A.Nassir Hussain, Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed
For the Respondents: Ms.Yasmin Ali, Mr.Raja Mohamed

Executive Officers appointed under Section 38 have distinct powers from Mutawallis and are not removable under Section 68; appeals under Section 64(1)(k) against removal of Mutawalli are maintainable and must be decided timely.

Headnote:(A) Waqf Act, 1995 - Sections 38, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68(1), 114 of Indian Evidence Act - Removal of Mutawalli and appointment of Executive Officer - Distinction between powers and removal processes of Mutawalli and Executive Officer emphasized - Section 38 grants broad authority to Waqf Board to appoint Executive Officer notwithstanding other provisions. (Paras 28-39, 41, 42)

(B) Jurisdiction and Appeal - Appeal lies under Section 64 in specified cases; maintainability of appeal under Section 64(1)(k) affirmed by Division Bench and upheld here - Court sets aside Waqf Tribunal's conditional maintainability finding. (Paras 16, 27)

Facts of the case:
A complaint alleging mismanagement by trustee of two religious institutions led to enquiry under Section 64 of Waqf Act. The Waqf Board removed committee and appointed an Executive Officer under Section 38, post enquiry and audit reports. The petitioner challenged the board's order refusing interim relief before the Waqf Tribunal.

Findings of Court:
The Court found the Waqf Board acted within powers to appoint Executive Officer post removal of Mutawallis and noted distinction between Executive Officer and Mutawalli roles and powers. The interlocutory order refusing stay was not interfered with as not ex facie illegal or arbitrary. The court clarified appeal is maintainable and will be decided timely to protect rights before upcoming elections.

Issues: Whether the removal of committee and appointment of Executive Officer by Waqf Board complied with statutory provisions, the maintainability of appeal under Section 64, and applicability of Section 68 for possession.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that an Executive Officer appointed under Section 38 is distinct from a Mutawalli and not subject to removal under Section 68, which applies only to Mutawalli. Section 38's non obstante clause confers wide discretionary powers on the Board to appoint Executive Officer in interest of Waqf. Appeal against removal under Section 64(1)(k) is maintainable as per previous orders of Division Bench. (Paras 28-39, 41, 27)

Result: Civil revision petition dismissed; interim order of Waqf Tribunal upheld; directions given for expeditious disposal of appeal keeping in view election timeline.

Table of Content
1. factual background on waqf board enquiry, petitioner's role, complaint and procedural history. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
2. arguments on legality of removal, possession, appeal maintainability and actions post removal. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 40 , 41)
3. court's discretionary review and observations on procedural adequacy and appeal rights. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
4. detailed legal analysis distinguishing executive officer and mutawalli roles and relevant statutory provisions. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
5. court’s directions for timely disposal of appeal and final dismissal of revision petition. (Para 42 , 43 , 44)

ORDER

This civil revision petition challenges the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal at Chennai in CMP.No.17 of 2024 in AA.No.4 of 2024 dated 23.12.2024.

2. The appellant before the Waqf Tribunal is the civil revision petitioner herein. He is the managing trustee of the Mohideen Andavar, Puradhana Dargah and Pallivasal, and Mina Noordeen Puradhana Dargah and Pallivasal, Therkuvasal, Madurai.

3. In terms of the scheme, which governs the two religious institutions, an election is to be held to elect the members to the Committee of management. Totally 20 posts are available in the Committee. An election was held and the petitioner was declared elected along with 19 other persons. The newly impleaded fourth respondent is one such person. The period of office is three years i.e., between 11.09.2022 and 10.09.2025.

4. A complaint was lodged by the fourth respondent with the Waqf Board, on 20.04.2023, alleging certain acts of commission and omission by the civil revision petitioner. According to the fourth respondent, the acts alleged to have been committed by the civil revision petitioner attract the provisions of Section 64 of the Waqf Act. As enquiry on this complaints was not commenced by the Waqf Board, a writ petition was filed before this Court. An order came to be passed directing the Waqf Board to conduct an enquiry and pass orders.

5. Accordingly, on 23.08.2023, an enquiry was conducted. Thereafter, the Waqf Board decided to conduct a personal inspection of the Waqfs. The Chairman and four other members, together with the Chief Executive Officer of the Board, conducted an inspection on 03.09.2023. Pursuant to the inspection on 27.10.2023, the Chief Executive Officer submitted a report. On the basis of the Chief Executive Officer's report, a fresh enquiry was conducted by the Waqf Board on 31.10.2023. During the course of enquiry, the civil revision petitioner participated. He was also represented by a counsel. On 27.11.2023, the Waqf Board decided that prima facie, the acts of the petitioner attract Section 64 and directed issuance of a show cause notice.

6. The Waqf Board issued show cause notices on 06.02.2024 to the concerned parties. Replies were sent on 23.02.2024. In addition, to find out the current state of affairs, the Superintendent of Waqf, Madurai was called upon to submit a report on 18.04.2024. The Local Fund Audit, during the course of its duties, submitted a report on 02.05.2024. A reply was given by the office bearers on 06.05.2024 to the report submitted by the Superintendent of Waqf. The Waqf Board took up the matter for enquiry again on 02.07.2024. The Local Fund Audit's report was considered and a copy was also given to the civil revision petitioner. He was granted two weeks time to file a reply. Though the time to file the reply expired on 15.07.2024, his reply dated 18.07.2024 was received by the Waqf Board.

7. Final arguments in the show cause notice and reply were made on 15.10.2024. On that date, the petitioner was represented by Mr.N.A.Nassir Hussain. It was pointed out by Mr.N.A.Nassir Hussain that even when the notice of hearing was served on the petitioner, he had made an endorsement on the notice stating that Urs festival for the Durgah has to be held between 04.10.2024

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 30221

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS, Jcivil revision petitioner – AppellantVersusTamil Nadu Waqf Board – RespondentCMP.No.17 of 2024 | AA.No.4 of 2024 | CRP.No.48 of 2025

Executive Officers appointed under Section 38 have distinct powers from Mutawallis and are not removable under Section 68; appeals under Section 64(1)(k) against removal of Mutawalli are maintainable and must be decided timely.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
, J
civil revision petitioner – Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Waqf Board – Respondent
CMP.No.17 of 2024 | AA.No.4 of 2024 | CRP.No.48 of 2025