Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 43844
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
Mohamed Rizwan – Appellant
Versus
Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Waqf Board – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.10649 and 10650 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.Navas Shareef
For the Respondents: S.A.Ajmal Khan
An administrative enquiry notice is not in violation of a prior court order if the scope of the enquiry is restricted to the specific issues authorized by the prior judgment, such as the disqualification of a party based on a fresh representation.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged an enquiry notice issued by the Waqf Board, alleging it violated a previous court order in W.P.(MD)No.7859 of 2026. The petitioner contended that the previous order limited the Waqf Board's jurisdiction regarding disqualification proceedings and mandated that Muthavalliship issues be addressed before the Waqf Tribunal. The core issue was whether the impugned notice pertained to prohibited subject matter or complied with the previous judicial directives. Observing the submissions of the respondents, the court reasoned that the enquiry was focused on the disqualification of a specific individual pursuant to legitimate representations, rather than improperly reopening settled matters. The Writ Petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to participate and represent concerns before the Waqf Board.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges administrative notice as violative of previous judicial mandate. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court permits enquiry to proceed within specified legal parameters. (Para 3 , 4) |
O R D E R
The Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned notice, dated
05.05.2026. By the said notice, the petitioner is called for an enquiry.
2.According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, earlier in respect of the very same Waqf, when W.P(MD)No.7859 of 2026 was filed, this Court adjudicated the issue and held that only with reference to the 4th respondent in the said Writ Petition, namely, A.Majeed, with reference to his disqualification alone, if the other side makes any representation, the Waqf Board can conduct an enquiry. Other than that, as far as the Muthavalliship of the petitioner is concerned, liberty was granted only to approach the Waqf Tribunal. Now ,the petitioner is also called for an enquiry. The same is in direct violation of the order of this Court.
3.When the matter came up for admission, the learned Counsel taking notice on behalf the Waqf Board would submit that the enquiry is only with reference to the disqualification of A.Majeed, since a fresh representation, as directed by this Court, is made by the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.7859 of 2026, namely, S.A.Mohammed Naufal. Therefore, only with reference to the said enquiry, notice was issued to all parties concerned and they are not in any manner violating the earlier order of this Court.
4.Recording the same and giving liberty to the petitioner to place on record any of his concerns also before the Waqf Board, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
