The power to remove a Mutawalli under Section 64 of the Waqf Act vests exclusively with the Waqf Board, and direct management under Section 65 should align with the established Scheme Decree to ensure administrative continuity.

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order of the first respondent dated 14.08.2025 taking the Waqf under direct Management by invoking Section 65 of the Waqf Act and the consequential notification of the

2^nd respondent dated 26.12.2025.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is one among the family trustees of the Waqf Board and as per the Scheme Decree, the Waqf Board constituted a Management Committee comprising of 7 trustees, 3 from the family of the founder and 4 from the general public for a period of 5 years from 31.05.2023 to 30.05.2028, vide proceedings dated 16.12.2023. As per the Scheme decree, 7 Mutawallis / trustees shall select one amongst them as Executive Mutawalli, who shall hold office for a period of 3 years eligible for re-election and the Executive Mutawalli is liable to be removed by Court. According to the petitioner, the respondents 5 to 7 were acting detrimental to the interest of the Waqf and therefore, the petitioner made a complaint to the respondents 1 and 2 on 08.04.2025 seeking their removal. While so, on 27.04.2025, the respondents 5 to 8 attempted to remove and interfere with the office of the 4^th respondent Executive Muthawalli. As against the same, the 4^th respondent filed W.P.No.18039/2025 and this Court, vide order dated 15.05.2025 held that under Section 64 of the Waqf act, power to remove Muthawalli vests only with the Waqf Board and that one Muthawalli is not entitled to remove another Muthawalli and that in terms of the scheme decree governing the Waqf, the Executive Muthawalli can be removed only by the Waqf Board and therefore, the alleged removal of the 4^th respondent by the respondents 5 to 8 was held to be bad and also directed the Waqf Board to consider the representation taking action against the respondents 5 to 8 herein. However, without taking action upon the complaints against the respondents 5 to 8, the Waqf Board has erroneously assumed direct management without jurisdiction, more so when none of the ingredients of Section 65 of the Waqf Act are satisfied. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Waqf Board has taken over direct management without jurisdiction, however, this Court may issue a direction to the respondents to consider the conduct of election, as per the Scheme Decree and till such time, the first respondent may take over the power.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Waqf has no objection for the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials on record.

6. As already held by this Court in W.P.No.18039/2025, under Section

64 of the Waqf act, power to remove Muthawalli vests only with the Waqf Board and that one Muthawalli is not entitled to remove another Muthawalli and that in terms of the scheme decree governing the Waqf, the Executive Muthawalli can be removed only by the Waqf Board. In the interest of Waqf, the respondents are directed to consider the conduct of election of the Waqf Board as per the Scheme Decree and till such time, the Elected body takes over the Management of the Waqf Board and the first respondent can continue. The first respondent also shall consider the representation given by the petitioner with respect to irregularities committed by the respondent Nos.5 to 8 and shall ensure the proper administration of the Waqf as per the provisions of the Waqf Act.

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.