Disposed¶6

M.R.Ayub v. the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2025WP/22862/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (R. Nataraj J, 12.08.2025), WP 22862/2016 (GM-WAKF): challenge to Wakf Board order dt.28.05.2015 (No.KTW/CMC/11/KDU/10-11) approving bye-laws/scheme of Jamia Masjid, Madikeri and to claimed General Body Meeting/election of 23.02.2016 electing Janab F.M. Khan as Muthavalli; disposed of on ground of effective alternative remedy under S.69(3) Waqf Act 1995; bye-law validity (Ss.69(1)-(2)) and election legitimacy referred to Waqf Tribunal; limitation protection for time spent in writ petition; contentions left open; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

None; petitioners given liberty to approach the Waqf Tribunal to challenge the approval of bye-laws and the election of 23.02.2016, with time spent in this writ petition to be deducted in computing limitation; all contentions left open. ¶6

M.R.Ayub Vs the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court can examine whether the bye-laws approved by respondent No.1 conform to Sections 69(1) and (2) of the Waqf Act, given that the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy before the Waqf Tribunal under Section 69(3) of the Waqf Act, 1995. +1 more

¶5

Court's answer

Since the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy before the Waqf Tribunal under Section 69(3) of the Waqf Act, 1995, this Court cannot go into the question whether the bye-laws approved by respondent No.1 accord with Sections 69(1) and (2) of that Act.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

As respondent No.1 approved the bye-laws on 28.05.2015, the legitimacy of the election conducted on 23.02.2016 has to be examined before the Tribunal.

¶5

Key takeaways

Without going into the merits of the petitioners' case, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioners to approach the Waqf Tribunal if they wish to challenge the order approving the bye-laws of respondent No.4 as well as the election to the office of Muthavalli on 23.02.2016.ratio¶6
If an appeal is filed before the Tribunal, the time consumed in pursuing this writ petition shall be deducted while calculating limitation, and all contentions are left open.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Art. 226 & 227, GM-WAKF): Four persons interested in Jamia Masjid, Madikeri challenged the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs' order dated 28.05.2015 approving the scheme of management/bye-laws of the Masjid, and sought a declaration that the General Body Meeting and election of 23.02.2016 (electing respondent No.3 as Muthavalli) are null and void. Holding: the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy before the Waqf Tribunal under Section 69(3) of the Waqf Act, 1995; consequently the Court declined to examine whether the approved bye-laws conform to Sections 69(1) and (2), and held that the legitimacy of the 23.02.2016 election must be examined before the Tribunal. The writ petition was disposed of without going into merits, directing the petitioners to approach the Waqf Tribunal, with the time consumed in this petition to be deducted while calculating limitation, and all contentions left open.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:31288 WP No. 22862 of 2016

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 22862 OF 2016 (GM-WAKF)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M.R. AYUB S/O. ABDUL RAHEEM AGED ABOUT: 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT: RANIPET, MADIKERI-571201.

¶9

MOHAMMED IMRAN S/O. LATE ABUBAKER, AGED ABOUT: 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT: RANIPET, MADIKERI-571201.

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

MOHAMMED HANEEF S/O.LATE MOHAMMED GOUSE, AGED ABOUT: 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT: RANIPET, MADIKERI - 571 201.

¶12

MOHAMMED FAREED S/O. BASHA SAHIB, AGED ABOUT: 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT: NEAR A.V. SCHOOL MADIKERI - 571 201.

¶13

&PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. PRADEEP H.S., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKFS, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DARUL AWKAF, NO.6 CUNNINGHAM ROAD

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:31288 WP No. 22862 of 2016

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

BENGALURU - 560 052

¶20

THE WAKF INSPECTOR DISTRICT WAKF ADVISORY COMMITTEE KODAGU DISTRICT GANAPATHY STREET, MADIKERI - 571 201

¶21

JANAB F.M. KHAN MUTHAVALLI, JAMIYA MASJID, MAHADEVPET MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201

¶22

JAMIYA MASJID, MAHADEVPET REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201

¶23

&RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. P. USMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 VIDE ORDER DATED 14.11.2019, R3 EXPIRED, THERE IS NO NEED TO BRING LRS ON RECORD SMT. KARISHMA NAGHNOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.05.2015 PASSED BY R-1 AT ANNEX-A; DECLARE THAT THE ALLEGED GENERAL BODY MEETING AND ELECTION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED BYE-LAW IN RESPECT OF R-4 INSTITUTION AS NULL AND VOID AND ETC.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:31288 WP No. 22862 of 2016

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioners have challenged an order bearing No.KTW/CMC/11/KDU/10-11 dated 28.05.2015 passed by the respondent No.1 approving the scheme of management of Jamia Masjid, Madikeri. The petitioners have sought for a declaration that the General Body Meeting held on 23.02.2016 and the election of the Muthavalli of the respondent No.4 is null and void.

¶32

(i) The petitioners contend that they are all interested in the respondent No.4, which was registered under the Mysore Societies Registration Act, 1960. The bye-laws of the respondent No.4 was approved on 17.10.1971. They contend that based on a letter dated 06.08.1981 of respondent No.3, he was appointed as a Muttuvalli for six months vide order of respondent No.1 dated 07.08.1981. He was directed to manage the affairs of the Masjid with the help of an Advisory committee comprising of five members for a period of six months. The respondent No.3 had usurped the office of Muthavalli for over 32 years without complying any of the conditions and directions imposed upon him in law and by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The respondent authorities were also

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:31288 WP No. 22862 of 2016

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

silent and did not take any action to replace the respondent No.3. Therefore, the petitioners and other interested persons in and around Madikeri had formed a task force to fight the illegal authority exercised by the respondent No.3.

¶36

(ii) Since the respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not take any action against the respondent No.3 and since the respondent No.3 failed to conduct General Body Meetings and the elections, W.P.No.17555-59/2013 was filed by Mr.R.Mumtaz and others for a direction to the respondents to conduct General Body Meetings and election to the managing committee of respondent No.4.

¶37

(iii) The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court directing the respondent No.1 to conduct the General Body Meeting and the election to the managing committee of the respondent No.4 on or before 30.06.2015. The petitioners contend that the respondents did not conduct the election as directed by this Court and therefore they were constrained to file contempt petition No.1604/2015. The respondent No.1 in WP.No.17555/2013 sought extension of time to comply the order dated 16.10.2014, which was accordingly extended up to 31.03.2016.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:31288 WP No. 22862 of 2016

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

(iv) The petitioners contend that the respondent No.1 thereafter allegedly colluded with the respondent No.3 and approved the bye-laws of the respondent No.4 without calling for any objections from the members of the respondent No.4 and without notifying the members about the bye-laws. The petitioners caused a notice to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 informing them that the respondent No.4 was administered under a set of bye-laws and therefore requested the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take necessary steps as per those bye-laws. The respondent No.1 did not reply to the said notice and did not take any action.

¶42

(v) The petitioners contend that the respondent No.1 was though bound to hold elections by or before 24.02.2016, filed an affidavit stating that the elections were held on 23.02.2016 itself and that the respondent No.3 was elected as Muthavalli. The petitioners therefore have challenged the byelaws approved by the respondent No.1 in respect of the respondent No.4 and also sought for a declaration that the General Body Meeting and the election conducted at the General Body Meeting on 23.02.2016 are null and void.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:31288 WP No. 22862 of 2016

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the bye-laws which were approved by the respondent No.1 without publishing the same in the manner known to law and without informing the members of the respondent No.4 were not sustainable in the eye of law and therefore are liable to be set aside. He also contends that the General Body Meeting of the respondent No.4 was not held on 23.02.2016 and no elections were held on the said day and the respondent No.3 was not elected. Nonetheless, he contends the respondent Nos.1 and 3 have claimed that the elections were held on 23.02.2016 and the respondent No.3 was elected as a Muthavalli. He therefore contends that the alleged General Body Meeting held on 23.02.2016 and the election of the respondent No.3 be declared null and void.

¶47

The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the respondent No.4 was earlier administered by bye-laws, which were approved by the Registrar of Societies. He submits that after respondent No.1 came to know that the respondent No.4 did not have bye-laws as prescribed by the Waqf Act, 1995, it framed and approved the bye-laws. He

¶48

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:31288 WP No. 22862 of 2016

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

therefore contends that the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to approach the Tribunal under Section 69(3) of the Waqf Act, 1995. He also contends that the question whether the respondent No.3 was lawfully elected or not can also be examined by the Tribunal and therefore prays that the petition be dismissed.

¶51

A perusal of Section 69 of the Waqf Act shows that the Waqf board either on its own motion or on the application of not less than 5 % of persons interested in the Waqf, can frame a scheme for the proper administration of the Waqf, after providing reasonable opportunity and after consultation of the Muthavalli and others in the prescribed manner. The scheme could provide for removal of the Muthavalli of the Waqf holding office before the date of the scheme coming into force and every order passed under Sections 69 (1) and (2) is appealable before the Tribunal within sixty days from the date of the order. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy before the Waqf Tribunal under Section 69(3) of the Waqf Act, 1995 and therefore this Court cannot go into the question whether the bye-laws approved by the respondent

¶52

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:31288 WP No. 22862 of 2016

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

No.1 is in accordance with Section 69 (1) and (2). This apart, since the respondent No.1 has approved the bye-laws on 28.05.2015, the legitimacy of the election conducted on 23.02.2016, has to be examined before the Tribunal.

¶55

In that view of the matter, without going to the merits of the case of the petitioners, this writ petition is disposed off , directing the petitioners to approach the Waqf Tribunal, if they are interested to challenge the order passed by the respondent No.1 approving the bye laws of respondent No.4 as well as the election to the office of the Muthavalli on 23.02.2016. If an appeal is filed, the time consumed in pursuing this petition shall be deducted while calculating the limitation. All contentions are left open.

¶56

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶57

BKN

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

M.R.Ayub v. the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.R.Ayub v. the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Excel Wirecut Inc. Vs Karnataka Industrial Areas

M/S Sln Hollow Block and Earth Movers Vs Canara Bank

Sri. Vijayakrishna Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs. Asha S Vs Authorised Officer Rbl Bank

Sri Ravikumar Vs M/S Dcb Bank Ltd.

Krishna Valley Vineyard Private Limited Vs Bank of India