Allowed

Mohammed Azizullah v. The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board

Madras HC17 Oct 2024WP(MD)/20617/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed the Writ Petition seeking to quash the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board's notification calling for an election. The Court set aside the impugned notification relying on its previous order in W.P.(MD) No.13695 of 2020, which held the Board had no authority to conduct elections.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notification calling for election is set aside. Respondents are granted liberty to seek redressal.

Mohammed Azizullah Vs The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.20617 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 17.10.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.20617 of 2024

¶7

Mohammed Azizullah ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, No.1, Jaffer Sytang Street, Vallal Setthakathi Nagar, Chennai - 600 001.

¶10

2.Chinna Pallivasal Waqf, Rep. by its Managing Trustee, T.Najumudeen, S/o.N.Tajudween, West Masi Street, Madurai.

¶11

3.A.Aftaf Ahamed

¶12

4.S.Syed Munaaf

¶13

5.Ghouse Batcha @ N.M.B.Ghouse ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶15

praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P.(MD) No.20617 of 2024

¶19

records pertaining to the notification of the election notified by the 1st respondent, dated 14.08.2024, (but affixed on the notice board on 26.08.2024)

¶20

and quash the same as illegal and unsustainable and may direct the 1^st respondent to create a register of a membership of all interested persons of Chinnapalli Vasal Jamath by appointing a committee.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar

¶22

For Respondent 1 : Mr.S.A.Ajmal Khan, Standing Counsel.

¶23

For Respondents 2 & 5 : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan

¶24

For Respondent 3 : Ms.Ajimath Begum

¶25

For Respondent 4 : Mr.M.Raj Kumar

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the notification of the election notified by the 1st respondent, dated 14.08.2024, on the premie that the said notification is contrary to the orders of this Court in Mohammed Yusuf v . The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board in W.P.(MD) No.13695 of 2020 and other

¶28

Page 2 of 5

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.(MD) No.20617 of 2024

¶31

connected matters, dated 19.04.2023, wherein it has been held that the Waqf Board would nave no authority to conduct election. The said order of this Court has been subsequently followed in a catena of decisions.

¶32

In view of the above, the impugned notification, calling for election by the Waqf Board, is set aside.

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 5 would submit that they may be granted liberty to seek redressal of their grievance.

¶34

It is always open for the respondents to get their grievance, if any, redressed in the manner known to law.

¶35

Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.M.P.(MD) Nos.17478, 17479 and 17832 of 2024 are closed.

¶36

17.10.2024

¶37

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶38

dixit

¶39

Page 3 of 5

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.P.(MD) No.20617 of 2024

¶42

To:

¶43

The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, No.1, Jaffer Sytang Street, Vallal Setthakathi Nagar, Chennai - 600 001.

¶44

_____________ Page 4 of 5_

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.P.(MD) No.20617 of 2024

¶47

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

¶48

dixit

¶49

W.P.(MD) No.20617 of 2024

¶50

17.10.2024

¶51

Page 5 of 5

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Mohammed Azizullah v. The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Azizullah v. The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zirconium Complex Rep By Its General Manager M Periasamy Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Murugan Vs The District Collector

Venkatachalam .Tk Vs The Commissioner

S.Sivakumar, Proprietor Vs The Additional Commissioner of GST and Central Excise

Mohammed Muthalip. a Vs The Chief Executive Officer

Kattu Bava Sahib Pallivasal @ Peer Mohammed Sahib Pallivasal Vs The Chief Executive Officer