Madras High Court
Shahul Hameed vs Tamil Nadu Waqf Board on 24 June, 2025
Bench: J.Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
W.A(MD)No.739 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 23.04.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 24.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)No.739 of 2025
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.5083 & 5118 of 2025
Shahul Hameed ... Appellant/Writ Petitioner
Vs.
1.Tamil Nadu Waqf Board,
Represented by its Chairman,
No.1, Jaffar Syrang Street,
Vallal Seethakathi Nagar,
Chennai – 600 001.
2.The Chief Executive Officer,
Tamil Nadu Waqf Board,
No.1, Jaffar Syrang Street,
Vallal Seethakathi Nagar,
Chennai – 600 001.
3.The Superintendent of Waqf/Election Officer,
Thoothukudi District,
Office of the Superintendent of Waqf Board,
Tirunelveli.
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
W.A(MD)No.739 of 2025
4.The Inspector of Waqf,
Thoothukudi District,
Office of the Inspector of Waqf Board,
Tirunelveli District.
5.M/s.Arampannai Mohaideen Pallivasal,
Represented by its Secretary,
Arampannai,
Thoothukudi District.
6.M.Abdul Karim
7.S.Abdul Karim
8.Abdul Faiz
9.Abdul Razak
10.Abdul Wahith
11.Abusali
12.Abul Kasim
13.Ayub Khan
14.Sahul Hameed
15.Mohamed
16.Mohamed Hussain
17.Mohamed Kasim
18.Mohamed Kalith
19.Noorul Akbar ... Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 27.02.2025 made in W.P(MD)No.204 of 2025 on the file of this
Court.
2/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
W.A(MD)No.739 of 2025
For Appellant : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal
Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.Navaneetha Raja
For RR 1 to 4 : Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed
Standing Counsel
For RR 5 to 19 : Mr.Mahaboob Athiff
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by J.NISHA BANU, J.)
Challenging the order passed by the Writ Court dated 27.02.2025 in
W.P.(MD) No.204 of 2025, the writ petitioner, as appellant, has filed the present
Writ Appeal.
2. The appellant filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash the impugned
order passed by the third respondent dated 29.12.2024, wherein the third
respondent declared respondents 6 to 19 as the winning candidates.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
3. The facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition are as follows:
3.1. On 21.02.2024, the third respondent issued Election Notification
No.1, publishing a draft voters’ list and calling for objections. Objections were
submitted on 18.03.2024. However, without considering those objections, the
third respondent issued another Election Notification No.4 on 09.08.2024 and
scheduled the date of election, fixing the date for filing nominations on
13.08.2024.
3.2. Aggrieved by the same, Abdul Kani and Mohammed Ali filed
Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD) Nos.19317 and 19582 of 2024 before the learned
Single Judge of this Court. By a common order dated 14.08.2024, the learned
Single Judge disposed of the petitions, directing that all objections be considered
and a fresh electoral list be published before proceeding with the election.
3.3. Pursuant to the said order, the third respondent issued a revised
voters’ list, adding 190 new voters, including the appellant. The appellant’s name,
along with his father's name and address, was listed at Serial No.1187. However,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
without affording an opportunity to the newly added voters to file their
nominations, the third respondent issued Election Notification No.13 on
23.12.2024, scheduling the election on 29.12.2024.
3.4. The appellant submitted his objection to the publication of the
election notification to the respondents 3 and 4, but no action was taken. The
election was conducted on 29.12.2024 and the third respondent issued the
impugned order on the same date, declaring the respondents 6 to 19 as the
winning candidates. The appellant contends that the process was arbitrary and
illegal.
4. The Writ Court, after considering the materials on record and
relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Board of Wakf,
West Bengal v. Anis Fatma Begum [2010 (14) SCC 588], dismissed the Writ
Petition, granting liberty to the appellant to approach the Waqf Tribunal. The
Tribunal was directed to decide the appellant’s case on its merits and in
accordance with law within a period of three months. Aggrieved by the same, the
appellant has filed the present Writ Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
5. The submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant are as follows:
5.1. The appellant, including 190 newly added members, were not
given an opportunity to file their nominations, which is contrary to the
fundamental principles of a fair election. This denial violates the appellant’s
fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, thereby
justifying judicial intervention. The appellant was denied the right to vote due to
improper preparation of the voters’ list.
5. Initially, the official respondents objected to the appellant’s eligibility,
claiming he was neither a member nor a voter of the Jamath. However, the
appellant later produced documentary evidence, including subscription
receipts, payment records, and a family card, establishing his Jamath
membership and nativity to Arampannai Village. Furthermore, the official
respondents did not dispute his eligibility before the learned Single Judge and
are therefore estopped from raising such objections now.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
5.3. The appellant’s name appeared in the supplementary voters’ list
at Serial No.1187, with his address recorded as KTC Nagar. He submitted a rental
agreement as proof of residence. He also clarified that he should not be confused
with another individual named Shahul Hameed residing in Kongarayankurichi,
located 17 km away. As no specific qualification was prescribed for voting
eligibility, all members of the Jamath, including the appellant, were eligible to
vote.
6. In support of his arguments, the learned senior counsel cited the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of
Trademarks [1998 (8) SCC 1], wherein it was held that the existence of an
alternative remedy does not bar the filing of a Writ Petition in cases involving:
(i) enforcement of fundamental rights;
(ii) violation of principles of natural justice; or
(iii) proceedings conducted wholly without jurisdiction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
Therefore, it was argued that the denial of voting and nomination rights amounts
to a violation of the appellant’s fundamental rights under Article 14, and hence
the Writ Petition is maintainable.
7. The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 5 to 19 are as follows:
7.1. Arampannai Mohideen Pallivasal, a notified waqf under
G.S. No.299/TNV, requires its mutawalli to be elected by the Jamath. Due to
alleged irregularities by the existing office bearers, one Mohamed Hanifa filed a
writ petition in W.P(MD)No.30232 of 2023 and the learned Single Judge, by
order dated 19.12.2023, directed the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board to conduct elections
within 12 weeks and to seek police protection if necessary.
7.2. In compliance, the election process was initiated and
notifications were issued. Former office bearer challenged the process in
W.P.(MD)No.19317 of 2024, requesting postponement of elections until a scheme
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
for the waqf was framed. Another individual, Mohamed Ali, also filed a Writ
Petition in W.P.(MD) No.19582 of 2024 challenging the notification. However,
the learned Single Judge directed that elections be held after addressing
objections to the voters’ list.
7.3. Following the process, elections were conducted on 29.12.2024,
and the respondents 6 to 19 were elected, replacing the previous office bearers.
The Superintendent of Waqf (third respondent), acting as the election officer,
recorded the results and recommended their approval to the Waqf Board.
7.4. The Waqf Board (second respondent) formally approved the
elected committee for the term 29.12.2024 to 28.12.2027 vide order dated
13.01.2025. Challenging the Superintendent’s recommendation dated 29.12.2024,
the appellant filed the Writ Petition. The Writ Court, however, dismissed the
Petition on 27.02.2025, granting liberty to the appellant to approach the Waqf
Tribunal and the Waqf Tribunal shall decide the case of the appellant on its own
merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
7.5. There were discrepancies in the appellant’s identity. Although he
claimed to be the individual listed at Serial No.1184, the age and address did not
match the record. His Aadhaar card also contradicted his claim. The rent
agreement he submitted was considered self-serving and unreliable.
7.6. Further, under Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995, election
disputes involving a waqf must be adjudicated by the Waqf Tribunal, not under
Article 226 of the Constitution. Hence, the Writ Petition was not maintainable and
the learned Single Judge rightly granted liberty to the appellant to approach the
Tribunal.
7.7. The Superintendent’s recommendation is merely an internal
communication and does not warrant writ intervention. No violation of statutory
or constitutional rights was established. The challenge to the election was raised
only after its conclusion, and not against the notification, implying acquiescence.
With the Waqf Board’s final order dated 13.01.2025, the Superintendent’s
recommendation merged with the final decision, rendering the challenge
infructuous. Therefore, the Writ Appeal is devoid of merit and deserves to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
dismissed.
8. Heard Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant, Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed, learned standing counsel appearing for the
respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.Mahaboob Athiff, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 5 to 19 and perused the materials placed before this Court.
9. The appellant's principal contention is that although his name,
along with 190 others, was included in the revised voters’ list, he was denied an
opportunity to file his nomination due to the election notification dated
23.12.2024 being issued without sufficient notice. It is his claim that this violates
Article 14 of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice.
10. The appellant further asserts that he is a valid member of the
Jamath and that objections to his eligibility were not raised before the learned
Single Judge, thereby precluding the respondents from doing so at the appellate
stage. Reliance was placed on the judgment in Whirlpool Corporation v.
Registrar of Trademarks [1998 (8) SCC 1], to argue that a writ remedy is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
maintainable notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy, where
fundamental rights and natural justice are at stake.
11. Per contra, the respondents 1 to 4 contend that the election was
held in compliance with earlier court directions and the Waqf Board has since
approved the elected committee for the term 2024–2027. They assert that the
appellant’s claim suffers from factual inconsistencies relating to his identity and
residence, and also that the appropriate forum for adjudicating such election-
related grievances is the Waqf Tribunal under Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995.
12. Upon perusal of the materials placed and the submissions made,
this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the learned
Single Judge. The Supreme Court in Board of Wakf, West Bengal v. Anis Fatma
Begum [2010 (14) SCC 588] has held that election-related disputes under the
Waqf Act must be adjudicated before the Waqf Tribunal, which is a specialized
forum with exclusive jurisdiction under the Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
13. We also find that the appellant, though included in the revised
voters’ list, did not challenge the final election notification before the election
was conducted on 29.12.2024. The challenge was only to the result declared on
that date. This belated challenge lends credence to the respondents' contention of
acquiescence and delay.
14. The mere inclusion in the voters' list does not ipso facto
guarantee the right to contest unless the process is shown to be vitiated by mala
fides or illegality, which the appellant has failed to establish. Further, the
Superintendent's communication dated 29.12.2024 stands merged with the Waqf
Board's final order dated 13.01.2025 approving the elected committee, which has
not been independently challenged.
15. In view of the above and considering that the learned Single
Judge has already reserved the appellant’s right to approach the Waqf Tribunal
with a direction for expeditious disposal within three months, we see no infirmity
or perversity in the impugned order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
16. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, without prejudice to
the appellant’s right to approach the Waqf Tribunal under Section 83 of the Waqf
Act, 1995, as already observed by the learned Single Judge. There shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[J.N.B.,J.] & [S.S.Y.,J.]
24.06.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
To
1.The Chairman,
Represented by the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board,
No.1, Jaffar Syrang Street,
Vallal Seethakathi Nagar,
Chennai – 600 001.
2.The Chief Executive Officer,
Tamil Nadu Waqf Board,
No.1, Jaffar Syrang Street,
Vallal Seethakathi Nagar,
Chennai – 600 001.
3.The Superintendent of Waqf/Election Officer,
Thoothukudi District,
Office of the Superintendent of Waqf Board,
Tirunelveli.
4.The Inspector of Waqf,
Thoothukudi District,
Office of the Inspector of Waqf Board,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
J.NISHA BANU, J.
and
S.SRIMATHY, J.
ps
Pre-Delivery Judgment Made in
24.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
