Back
Quashes Wakf Board's Appointment, Violates Statutory Rules
The has set aside an issued by the constituting an 11-member to manage a waqf institution, holding that the Board bypassed the prescribed under the .
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, hearing a filed by the President and Secretary of the , found that the Board repeatedly appointed administrators and ad-hoc committees despite earlier court directions to follow the procedure under Rule 54.
Background: A History of Defiance
The tenure of the of the waqf institution expired on . Instead of constituting a as mandated by , the Board appointed an . This led to the petitioners approaching the High Court in W.P.No.103173/2022, where interim protection was granted and the appointment stayed.
The matter was disposed of on , with directions to maintain . However, the Board again appointed an , prompting another (W.P.No.103432/2025), which was allowed on . The court quashed the appointment and directed the Board to redo the exercise in accordance with law.
Despite these orders, the Board issued the impugned on , constituting an for eleven months as a "special case" upon the recommendation of the Hon'ble Minister for Wakf.
The Challenge: Bypassing Statutory Rules
The petitioners contended that , provides a complete mechanism for the constitution of the succeeding . clearly states that if the is not constituted, management automatically vests in the , who must take steps to constitute a committee within three months. The Board, they argued, had no power to create an in defiance of this rule.
Court's Analysis on Maintainability
The respondents raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the petitioners had an before the under . They relied on the 's decision in .
Justice Magadum distinguished this case, relying on the 's later ruling in . The court held that where the challenge is directed against the legality of the Board's action itself—particularly when it violates or disregards —the High Court's is not ousted.
“The existence of an is undoubtedly a relevant consideration,” the court observed, “however, where the action complained of is alleged to be without jurisdiction, in violation of a mandatory statutory provision, in breach of or in disregard of , the High Court is entitled to exercise its .”
Key Observations
The court emphasized that Rule 54 does not confer on the Board:
“The Rule does not confer an upon the Board to devise any alternative arrangement of its choice upon expiry of the tenure of the existing committee. It specifically identifies the authority who is to assume management and supervision in the and further casts a duty upon that authority to secure constitution of the .”
On the use of ad-hoc committees, the court warned:
“The existence of an cannot be permitted to become a substitute for the contemplated under the Rules. An , if permissible in law, must remain genuinely interim and cannot be employed to defeat the prescribed mechanism for constitution of the regular .”
The court also noted that the impugned order was not a mere administrative arrangement:
“It has the effect of displacing the under Rule 54 and creating an alternative management structure for a substantial period of eleven months.”
Decision and Directions
Allowing the , Justice Magadum quashed the dated . The court directed the , Chikodi, to immediately take charge of the management and supervision of the waqf institution. The officer must schedule a , conduct it under his supervision, and formulate a scheme strictly in accordance with and .
The entire exercise must be completed within four months. Till then, the alone shall control and supervise the institution without interference from any party. The court made it clear that it expressed no opinion on the eligibility of any individual for the .
The judgment reinforces that statutory authorities must act within the bounds of the law and cannot invent parallel mechanisms to bypass mandatory rules.
