The Waqf Board, under the Waqf Act, 1995, functions as the Scheme Court, obligating trustees to submit accounts directly to it without seeking decree amendments.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 02.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and WMP(MD) Nos.4707 and 4708 of 2026 Scheme Trust Board of Peria Pallivasal Rep by its President Pandaravadai Thanjavur District K.P.A.Jaffer Ali S/o Abdul Majeed. ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Chief Executive Officer Tamilnadu Wakf Board No 1, Jaffar Syrang Street Vallal Seethakathi Nagar Chennai- 600 001.

2.Abdul Malik ...Respondents Writ Petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the impugned proceedings issued by the 1st respondent in RC.No.12306/15/B7/TNJ dated 31.03.2023 and also the show cause notice dated 08.01.2026 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently allowing the petitioner Trust Board to comply with the terms and conditions of the scheme decree passed in I.A. No.222/1986 dated 14.02.1986 for furnishing of accounts of the Scheme Trust Board.

For Petitioner :Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for Mr.B.Jameelarasu For R1 :Mr.K.Jeyamohan For R2 :Mr.K.Navaneetharaja

ORDER

The Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent, dated 31.03.2023 and the show cause notice dated 08.01.2026 issued by the first respondent and to quash the same and consequently allow the petitioner Trust Board to comply with the terms and conditions of the scheme decree passed in I.A.No.222 of

1986, dated 14.02.1986.

2.Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, the grievance of the petitioner is that the scheme framed by the competent Civil Court governs the Waqf in question, namely, Peria Palivasal, Pandaravadai, having Waqf No.393-TNJ. By order dated 14.01.1986, the Muthavalli is enjoined upon to submit the accounts relating to the Waqf to the scheme Court once in every 3 months. Earlier, when the Waqf Board filed an application requesting that the account should be submitted to the Waqf Board, the civil Court dismissed the same, by directing the Waqf Board to file an application for amendment of the scheme and did not entertain the prayer made by the Waqf Board.

3.Under the said circumstances, the impugned orders are result of series of proceedings by the Waqf Board repeatedly requesting the Muthavalli to submit the accounts before it. Repeatedly, it is the contention of the Muthavalli that as directed by the civil Court, the Waqf Board should take steps to file an application for amendment of decree and as and when the decree is amended, they will submit the accounts before the Waqf Board. In spite thereof, the impugned proceedings are issued. Now, for failing to submit the accounts, further proceedings are also threatened and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

4.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Waqf Board would submit that it is true that the Civil Court passed orders in the year 1986, requesting the Waqf Board to make out an application. Subsequently, the Waqf Act, 1995, came into force and thereafter, it is the Waqf Board, which has partaken the character of the Scheme Court. Therefore, no such amendment of decree is necessary as on date. In spite of the knowledge, the petitioner is not submitting the accounts and therefore it requires action.

5.Mr.K.Navaneetharaja, learned counsel taking notice on behalf of the second respondent would submit that the second respondent has been making several representations and reminders, in spite of which, the accounts are not to be seen, till date and therefore, no indulgence should be shown to the p