Interim committee members' tenure ends by efflux of time and court cannot extend it; Wakf Board must decide on representation promptly.

ORDER

The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated

11.03.2026 and 12.03.2026.

2. Heard Mr.N.A.Nassir Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Jeya Mohan, learned Standing Counsel, who takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

3. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and upon perusing the materials available on record, the grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as a member of the interim committee constituted to manage the Wakf after the removal of the existing Mutawalli. The tenure of the Adhoc Committee was originally to expire on 24.02.2025. The Adhoc Committee had made a representation seeking extension of its tenure for a further period, but the Wakf Board has not considered the said representation. Earlier directions had also been issued to the Wakf Board to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. In spite of the same, without passing orders on the representation, and based on the request made by the removed persons allegedly with an intention to wreak vengeance, the impugned order has now been passed by the Chief Executive Officer.

4. The Chief Executive Officer has no power to remove the Mutawalli. A person who is in charge of the management of the Wakf, even temporarily, would also fall within the definition of “Mutawalli”

under Section 3(i) of the Wakf Act, 1995.

5. The proceedings are pending, and this is a crucial time during which the Wakf has to be properly managed. According to the petitioner, only with a view to derail the administration, the request was made by the erstwhile Mutawalli, pursuant to which the impugned order came to be passed.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that only on account of the Model Code of Conduct being in force, the Wakf Board could not convene its sitting, and once the same is over in the month of May, orders would be passed on the representation submitted by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the order constituting the Adhoc Committee itself stipulated the period of tenure, and therefore, the committee members cannot claim any right to continue beyond the period for which they were appointed.

7. As a matter of fact, once the tenure of the committee comes to an end, it is for the Chief Executive Officer to authorize the Superintendent of Wakf to take charge, and such duty has been exercised through the impugned order. In fact, in the earlier round of litigation relating to the Urus festival, this Court had already directed only the Superintendent of Wakf to conduct the festival, since there were rival claims.

8. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

9. It is true that, upon a reading of Section 3(i), persons who are temporarily managing the affairs of the Wakf may also fall within the definition of “Mutawalli.” However, the impugned action is not a case of removal, since the tenure had already come to an end by efflux of time. It is evident that the Wakf Board has yet to pass orders after considering the case of the Adhoc Committee and the requirements of the Wakf. In the interregnum, the 2nd respondent is bound to act in accordance with law. Since the order of the Wakf Board itself clearly stipulated that the Adhoc Committee would not continue beyond a particular date, it was incumbent upon the 2nd respondent to make arrangements for the Wakf to be managed under the 4th respondent.

10. During the interregnum, it may be true that the petitioner and the other members of the Adhoc Committee have rendered services; however, the impugned order does not in any manner discount their services or cast any stigma upo