Madras High Court
M.Mubarak Ali Khan vs The Chairman on 13 April, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
W.P No.11164 of 2023
and W.M.P No.11018 of 2023
M.Mubarak Ali Khan Petitioner
vs.
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Waqf Board,
No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street,
Vallal Seethakathi Nagar,
Chennai – 600 001.
2.The Chief Executive Officer,
Tamil Nadu Waqf Board,
No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street,
Vallal Seethakathi Nagar,
Chennai – 600 001.
3.The Superintendent of Wakf,
Waqf Board, Cuddalore Circle,
No.152, Gandhi Road,
Panruti 607 106.
4.A.Ajmal Khan
5.S.Asamathullah Khan
6.Z.Afzal Khan
7.Mohammed Ismail Subair
8.A.Altaf Hussain
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Respondents
2
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the
proceedings dated 21.03.2023 in proceedings order 4825/03/A10/KT of the 1st
respondent and resolution of the 1st respondent dated 14.03.2023 in S.No. 9,
Item No. 63/23 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mrs.A.L.Gandhimathi
Senior Counsel for
Mr.A.Saravanan
For Respondents : Mr.E.Shankar
Standing Counsel for R1 to R3
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the 1st
respondent in 4825/03/A10/KT dated 21.03.2023 and the resolution of the 1st
respondent dated 14.03.2023 pertaining to S.No.9, wherein, the 1st respondent
has appointed five Trustees for the administration of the Udayarkudi Periya
Pallivasal Waqf and Thaikal Waqf for the period from 14.03.2023 to
13.03.2028.
2.Heard Mrs.A.L.Gandhimathi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner and Mr.E.Shankar, learned Standing Counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.The administration of the Udayarkudi Periyapallivasal Waqf and
Thaikal Waqf is covered by a scheme decree passed in O.S.No.53 of 1952 and
which was subsequently modified by this Court in A.S.No.5 of 1956. As per the
Scheme, totally five Trustees should be appointed among the worshipers in the
Mosque.
4.The 3rd respondent called for application for selection of Trustees for
the administration of the Waqf. This became a subject matter of challenge in a
writ petition in W.P.No.24961 of 2022. This writ petition was disposed of by
this Court by an order dated 09.12.2022, directing the respondents to issue a
fresh notification for appointing Trustees as per the scheme decree. Pursuant to
the same, applications were called for and the petitioner in this writ petition had
also applied for participating in the selection as a Trustee.
5.The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent issued a notice
on 07.03.2023 to all the applicants and requested them to attend the enquiry on
14.03.2023. Accordingly, 62 persons, who had applied, participated in the
enquiry. However, without considering the objections or without assigning any
reasons, the 1st respondent straightaway proceeded to pass a resolution on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
same day i.e., on 14.03.2023 and five persons were selected out of the 62
applicants and they were appointed as Trustees for the period from 14.03.2023
to 13.03.2026. The formal appointment was made through proceedings dated
21.03.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner, who was also one of the applicant who participated in the
selection process.
6.The main ground that was urged by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner was that totally 62 applicants had
submitted their applications for being considered to be appointed as the
Trustees of the Waqf. There were objections made against some of the persons,
who had applied and the 1st respondent was supposed to conduct an enquiry
and pass a considered order by giving some reasons as to why certain persons
were selected as Trustees and as to why the others were rejected in spite of the
fact that they were fully qualified for being considered to be appointed as
Trustee. The other grievance that was expressed by the learned Senior Counsel
was that the enquiry was conducted on 14.03.2023 and on the very same day
the resolution was passed and that shows the hastiness on the part of the 1st
respondent in selecting the Trustees to administer the Waqf.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.In the considered view of this Court, the petitioner has an efficacious
alternative remedy under Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995. Useful reference
can be made to the latest judgment of the Apex Court in Rashid Wali Beg vs.
Farid Pindari an Others reported in 2022 4 SCC 414, wherein, the Apex Court
has dealt with the powers of Waqf Tribunal in detail and has explained as to the
type of disputes that should be tried only by the Tribunal.
8.Admittedly, there were 62 applicants, who had participated in the
selection and out of the 62 applicants, five of them have been selected and
made as the Trustees of the Waqf. The Waqf Board is not expected to pass
orders like a Civil Court by assigning reasons independently for the selection of
certain candidates and the non-selection of the others. If really anyone is
aggrieved by their non-selection, it should only be agitated before the forum
where there is scope for a detailed enquiry. This Court exercising its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not undertake
such an exercise involving factual determination. Whether the qualified
applicants were selected as Trustees or there was discrimination in not selecting
certain applicants who are otherwise qualified or whether there was any
hastiness shown in the selection of the Trustees, are all matters involving
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
factual consideration and the Waqf Tribunal will be the appropriate forum to
agitate these issues. If a writ petition is entertained for one person, who is not
selected as a Trustee, it will follow suit with the other applicants also, who were
not selected as Trustees. Thereby, a huge batch of writ petitions will come up
before this Court and this Court has to deal with each and every case and such
an exercise should not be undertaken in a writ jurisdiction. This is more so,
since there is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner.
9.In the light of the above discussion, except giving this liberty to the
petitioner to agitate his grievance before the concerned Tribunal, no further
orders can be passed in this writ petition.
10.In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed. No Costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
13.04.2023
Index : Yes/No (2/2)
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
ssr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Waqf Board,
No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street,
Vallal Seethakathi Nagar,
Chennai – 600 001.
2.The Chief Executive Officer,
Tamil Nadu Waqf Board,
No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street,
Vallal Seethakathi Nagar,
Chennai – 600 001.
3.The Superintendent of Wakf,
Waqf Board, Cuddalore Circle,
No.152, Gandhi Road,
Panruti 607 106.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
ssr
W.P No.11164 of 2023
and W.M.P No.11018 of 2023
13.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (2/2)
