IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 01.12.2025

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED

W.A.No.3618 of 2025

K.Mohammed Ali .. Appellant

Vs.

1. S.Syed Naseer

2. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

Rep. By its Chief Executive Officer

No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street

Vallal Seethakathi Nagar

Chennai – 600 001. .. Respondents

Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against

the order made in W.P.No.17482 of 2023 dated 31.01.2025.

For the Appellant : Mr.S.R.Sundar

For the Respondents : Mr.I.Kowser Nissar

for R1

Mr.Mohammed Fyaz Ali

Standing Counsel

for R2

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

This intra-Court appeal has been directed against the order

passed by the Writ Court dated 31.01.2025 made in W.P.No.17482

of 2023.

2. The present appellant was the second respondent in the writ petition, as he was suo motu impleaded by the Writ Court as one of the party respondents in the writ petition, as the first respondent herein filed the said writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, the second respondent herein, to consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioner/first respondent dated 27.02.2023 and to conduct an enquiry regarding the administration of the Sayeedani Bi Dargha situate at S.No.167/2, Dindivanam Road, Vandavaasi Town, Thiruvannamalai District and to take appropriate action and bring the Wakf under the direct management of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board.

3. Though such short prayer was sought in the writ petition, after hearing both parties, the learned Writ Court, in paragraph 23 of the order, that is the operative portion, has given the following directions:-

“23. Therefore, the 1st respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 27.02.2023 by conducting thorough enquiry, after issuing necessary notice to the petitioner, 2nd respondent and other interested parties and pass final orders on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The 2nd respondent is entitled to raise all his objections before the 1st respondent, the same shall be considered by the 1st respondent on its own merits, without being influenced by anything observed in this order.”

It was a simple mandamus issued by the Writ Court, directing the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board to consider the representation given by the writ petitioner dated 27.02.2023 and after enquiring the same by issuing notice to the first respondent herein, the appellant, the second respondent herein and any other interested parties, pass orders thereon on merits and in accordance with law.

4.1. In this context, Mr.S.R.Sundar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that, before the Wakf Tribunal, a suit has already been filed by the present appellant in W.O.S.No.70 of 2020, where, the Chief Executive Officer of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board has been shown as the sole defendant, the prayer sought by the present appellant, who stood as the plaintiff, is for the following relief:-

“(i) for a declaration the plaintiff Saithani Bi and Shazathi Bi Dargah morefully described in the plaint schedule is a private wakf and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful administration of the suit private wakf and its properties;

(ii) for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to delete the entries in the Profora Report Register maintained by the defendant Board pertaining to the plaintiff Dargah as suit Dargah is outside the purview of the Wakf Act, 29/1954 and 43/1995 as the case may be;

(iii) for costs.”

4.2. It is, in this context, the grievance espoused by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that, by virtue of the impugned order passed by the Writ Court, the Wakf Board, that is the Principal Sub-Ordinate Judge at that time, now, it is Wakf Board at Chennai, has expressed views that, by virtue of