Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 78959
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.SARAVANAN, J
R.Ali Masthan – Appellant
Versus
The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board – Respondent
W.P.(MD) No.23146 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.A.Ajimath Begum
For the Respondents: Mr.K.Jeyamohan, Mr.Mahaboob Athiff
Failure to adhere to principles of natural justice in the administrative process can result in quashing of orders.
Headnote:(A) Waqf Act, 1995 - Section 26 - Natural justice - The petitioner challenged an order issued by the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board without due notice - Court upheld the requirement of hearing the petitioner before final orders were passed. (Paras 11, 14)
(B) Writ Petition - The court has the authority to quash orders not in compliance with earlier directives from the same court. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested the election results from a Wakf body and claimed procedural errors in approvals and elections, seeking judicial intervention to rectify the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer.
Findings of Court:
The order was quashed due to failure to adhere to principles of natural justice, directing fresh proceedings to be undertaken by the respondent, ensuring all parties are heard.
Issues: Main issues included proper notification and adherence to natural justice in order approval processes within the Waqf context.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that fairness and adherence to procedure is paramount, reinforcing that prior directives from court must be followed to ensure just outcomes.
Result: Writ Petition stands allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ filed challenging administrative order regarding community governance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. contentions over election legitimacy presented by both parties. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court emphasized importance of fair notice and hearing. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 14) |
| 4. writ allowed with directions for compliance with natural justice. (Para 12 , 13 , 15 , 16) |
ORDER
This writ petition is disposed of at the time of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4, as there are no other disputed question of facts involved.
2.The writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent in Se.Mu.Order No.14896/15/AA11/Sivagangai dated
25.06.2025.
3.This is the second round of litigation at the behest of the petitioner. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(MD) No.17087 of 2025, wherein, the petitioner had prayed for the following relief:-
“Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the first respondent from approving the illegal committee announced by the fourth respondent for the Senjai Muslim Jamath Pallivasal Waqf.”
4.This Court on 25.06.2025 had passed the following order:-
“4.Considering the same, this Court is inclined to direct the official respondents to examine whether the petitioner and the fourth respondent have filed any applications for recognition under Section 42 of the Wakf Act, 1995. If such applications have been filed, the official respondents are directed to consider and dispose of the same after hearing the petitioner and the fourth respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the process adopted during the general body meeting on 26.09.2024, it is open to the petitioner to approach the Wakf Tribunal seeking to set aside the election purportedly held on 29.09.2024.”
5.The background to the aforesaid order has been recorded in paras 2 and 3, which reads as under:-
“This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus to forbear the first respondent from approving the illegal committee announced by the fourth respondent for the Senjai Muslim Jamath Pallivasal Waqf. 2. The petitioner was the erstwhile Secretary of the Senjai Muslim Jamath Pallivasal Waqf. It is the case of the petitioner that the last election was conducted by the third respondent wakf on 17.07.2016 in accordance with the proforma of the subject Wakf as per which the Rule of succession that the office is by election conducted by the Muslim jamath of Senaji, Karaikudy. It is submitted that an attempt was made in the year 2022 to hold an election. However, one of the electoral Officers was suspended on account of corruption charges and therefore, the election did not take place in the year 2022. The election was held on 29.09.2024. The petitioner was declared as the Secretary of the Wakf, along with the other officer bearers. On the other hand, the fourth respondent claims that he was elected as the President on 26.09.2024.
3.The election to the office bearers of the wakf has to follow with an application for recognizing under Section 42 of the Wakf Act, 1995. The petitioner claims to have filed an application under of the Wakf Act. On the other hand, the fourth respondent has filed an application under of the Act on 26.09.2024.”
6.On the same day, the impugned order has been passed by the second respondent/the Chief Executive Officer, by alluding to a resolution of the Board, which is also dated 25.06.2025 in their proceedings No.11/25 bearing Ref.Se.Mu.No.14896/15/Aa11/Sivagangai.
7.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order has been passed without due notice to the petitioner on the same day, when W.P.(MD) No.17087 of 2025 was disposed of with the above observations on 25.06.2025. On the other hand, the learned coun
