Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 43018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
A.S.Mahaboob Basha – Appellant
Versus
The Chairman, The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board – Respondent
Writ Petition No.24502 of 2025 | W.M.P.No.27610 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.C.D.Sugumar
For the Respondents: Mr.Abdul Mubeen
Pending appeals in administrative law must be resolved before altering established management rights, reinforcing views on hereditary claims.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Hereditary Muthawalli - The petitioner claims heritage rights to be appointed as Muthawalli, which was previously recognized. A prior appeal is pending regarding the nature of management, while the petitioner contends that the new appointment violates hereditary customs. (Paras 3, 5, 6)
(B) Administrative Decisions - The court found that the petitioner's tenure had ended and his remedy lies in the pending appeal, thus upholding the authorization of the newly appointed Muthawalli, further emphasizing non-interference until the Tribunal's decision. (Paras 4, 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed hereditary rights to Muthawalliship based on a proforma granting such rights, arguing against recent attempts to appoint a new administrator and asserting ongoing disputes within the Waqf Board management.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the appeal's pending nature decides the legitimacy of the former Muthawalli’s tenure restriction and affirmed that the new appointment cannot be altered until the Tribunal's resolution.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the validity of the petitioner's hereditary rights against the new Muthawalli’s appointment and the pending appeal’s implications on such management changes.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reasoned that pending appeals in administrative law dictate Muthawalli appointment matters; interruptions in established customs await resolution from relevant authorities.
Result: Writ petition disposed of; petitioner allowed to pursue remedies in ongoing appeals.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the process of challenging waqf management decisions. (Para 1 , 2) |
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated 19.11.2024 appointing the seventh respondent as Muthawalli.
2. Heard Mr.C.D.Sugumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Abdul Mubeen, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4.
3. The case of the petitioner is that as per the Proforma dated
06.03.1957, the sanction to the office of the Muthawalli is hereditary by custom. According to the petitioner, the maternal grandfather late Mr.Rahamathullah Khan was the first proforma Muthawalli to both the Aquaf i.e. respondents 5 and 6. The proforma Muthawalli died in the year 1971 and there was no suitable person to administer the respondents 5 and 6. Taking advantage of the same, an attempt was made by some third parties to grab the administration without the sanction or permission of the Waqf Board. The further case of the petitioner is that he is the second son of one of the daughter of the proforma Muthawalli. Therefore, as grandson of the proforma Muthawalli, the petitioner submitted an application in the year 2000 and requested respondents 1 to 3 to appoint him as the hereditary Muthawalli of the Aquaf. The same was not immediately considered and the Aquaf was under the direct management of the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board for nearly 17 years from 2000 to 2019. Ultimately, based on the application submitted by the petitioner on 19.01.2019, the Waqf Board appointed the petitioner as the hereditary muthawalli of respondents 5 and 6. However, his tenure was restricted to three years and the grievance of the petitioner is that the hereditary muthawalliship was converted into a regular muthawalliship.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed A.A.No.3 of
2020 before the Waqf Tribunal, Chennai and the said appeal is pending. During the pendency of this appeal, the third respondent issued a notice dated 08.12.2022 for constituting a Management Committee for the respondents 5 and 6. The petitioner submitted a representation on 09.01.2023 to the respondents 1 and 2 requesting them not to conduct any election with respect to the Aquaf. However, applications were called for, for constituting a new Management Committee. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.11911 of 2024 and the said writ petition is pending.
5. While the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal is pending and the writ petition filed by the petitioner against constitution of new Management Committee is pending, the impugned proceedings dated 12.05.2025 came to be issued by the second respondent based on the resolution dated 19.11.2024 issued by the first respondent and thereby, the seventh respondent was appointed as the Muthawalli. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
6. In the considered view of this Court, the tenure of the muthawalliship of the petitioner has come to an end. Till date, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal has not been decided. Curiously, the petitioner did not make any attempt to get this appeal disposed of at the earliest point. Therefore, the restriction of the muthwalliship tenure is yet to be decided by the Tribunal. Insofar as the appointment of new Management Committee is concerned, it is an independent issue, which has to be agitated in the pending writ petition. While so, if the tenure of the petitioner has come to an end as per his initial appointment order dated 05.03.2019, obviously the official respondents will take steps to appoint a muthawalli. Accordingly, the seventh respondent has been appointed as the muthawalli. The same cannot be interfered with by this Court for the simple reason that the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before the Tribunal. Apart from the same, there are other disputed facts, which have been raised by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Waqf board.
7. In
