Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 56822
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Anand Venkatesh, J
K.G.Gani – Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Wakf Board – Respondent
WP No. 21242 of 2025 | WMP Nos.23998 & 24000 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.I.Kowser Nissar
For the Respondents: Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen Standing Counsel
The resolution by the Wakf Board is unenforceable until confirmed by the Chief Executive Officer.
Headnote:The present case involves a writ petition challenging a resolution by the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board regarding the Khutbapalli Jumma Pallivasal. The court analyzed the Wakf Act, 1995, particularly Section 26 pertaining to the powers of the Chief Executive Officer. The court found that the resolution passed requires confirmation for enforcement, leading to the conclusion that the writ petition is premature without such confirmation. The final ruling states that the writ petition stands disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition filed to challenge resolution. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. resolution requires confirmation by chief executive officer. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. writ petition deemed premature; disposed accordingly. (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the resolution passed by the
1st respondent dated 22.01.2025 and seeking a consequential direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to constitute a managing committee for the Khutbapalli Jumma Pallivasal by convening a general body meeting of its chandadars as per its custom and usage.
2. Heard Mr.I.Kowser Nissar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2.
3. It is seen from the records that the resolution has been passed by the 1st respondent and it has been placed before the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), who is the 2nd respondent in the writ petition.
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Wakf Board submitted that the Chief Executive Officer is yet to take a decision on the resolution that has been passed.
5. On going through the scheme of the Wakf Act , 1995, it is seen that Section 26 deals with powers of the Chief Executive Officer in respect of the resolutions of the Board. The said provision enables the Chief Executive Officer to consider such a resolution passed and see if such resolution can result in any of the contingencies provided from Clause (a) to Clause (c).
6. In such an event, before implementing the resolution, the matter can be placed before the Board for reconsideration. If the resolution is not confirmed by the majority of the members present and voting after such reconsideration, the Chief Executive Officer can refer the matter to the State Government along with his objections to the resolution, and the decision of the State Government thereon shall be final.
7. It is clear from the above that the resolution by itself does not carry any effect unless and until it is confirmed by the Chief Executive Officer. Only when the Chief Executive Officer gives his confirmation does the resolution passed by the 1st respondent gain necessary force.
8. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Wakf Board made a specific submission that the Chief Executive Officer is yet to confirm the resolution passed. That being so, the present writ petition is premature. Ultimately, if the Chief Executive Officer takes a decision and the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, it is left open to the petitioner to workout his remedy in the manner known to law.
9. With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
