The court held that judicial observations made during interim writ proceedings regarding the eligibility of public appointees do not constitute binding findings that preclude a statutory tribunal from conducting a de novo inquiry into the merits of the appointment based on subsequent evidence.

12.The Superintendent of Wakf Thanjavur Zone, Idgah Mosque, Railway Colony, Thanjavur Town and Taluk, Thanjvur District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in pertaining to the impugned resolution in Item No. 1, Serial No.1122/5(Admin), Na.Ka.No.16567/12/B7,Thanjai, dated 16.7.2025 passed by the first respondent and the consequential ore of the second respondent in proceedings No. 16567/12/B7/TNJ, dated 02.03.2026 for appointing the respondents 3 to 11 as Trustees for M.K.N.Madarasa Trust at Adiramapattinam, Pattukottai Taluk, Thanjavur District and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Gavaskart For Respondents : Mr.K.Jeya Mohan 1,2 and 12 Standing Counsel for Wakf Board For Respondents :Ms.Ajimath Begam

5 and 6 For Respondent-8 :Mr.Ismail

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed for a Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned resolution in item No.1, Serial No.1122/5 (Admin), Na.Ka.No.16567/12/B7/Thanjai, dated 16.07.2025 passed by the 1st respondent and the consequential order of the second respondent dated 02.03.2026.

2.Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the selection and appointment of the Board of Trustees / muthavalli by the impugned resolution. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there are several disqualifications and also several issues relating to the suitability of the persons appointed, including misappropriation of funds and involving in the offences of moral turpitude etc. The petitioner has a remedy for approaching the Waqf Tribunal and let in evidence by filing appropriate application before the Tribunal. But however, in this case, the parties approached this Court by way of writ petition in W.P.No.32521 of 2025. When the matter was kept pending by the Chief Executive Officer, this Court had called for the records and only some of the FIRs were mentioned and this Court found that there was no impediment appointing the said persons. Thereafter, while passing the consequential order, it is also mentioned by the Chief Executive Officer that the High Court itself cleared the appointment and therefore, the appointment is made. Therefore, even if the petitioner approached the Tribunal, the Tribunal would be bound by the findings of this Court as well as the findings of the Chief Executive Officer.

3.I have also heard the learned counsel for the Waqf Board and also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents.

4.When the selection was made by the waqf board and the resolution was passed, and when the same was not implemented by the Chief Executive Officer, the above writ petition in W.P.No.32521 of 2025 was filed. It was mentioned that subsequently certain criminal cases came to the notice of the Chief Executive Officer and therefore, the same was kept pending. But at that time, since by virtue of the interim order is granted, the Waqf Board was restrained from functioning, invoking the doctrine of necessity, this Court went into some of the facts which was brought to the notice of the Court alone and gave a finding that since those FIRs relating to protest, etc, and one of the FIRs was also dropped opined that there was no disqualification or allegation which would nonsuit any of the members who were appointed and directed the Chief Executive Officer to proceed with the implementation of the resolution of the Waqf Board. It is only in that context, the Chief Executive Officer has also given his finding. However, that will not preclude the petitioner from approaching the Waqf Tribunal making any allegation against all or any of the person(s) selected and if the petitioner is prod