Allowed

Rahamathulla.K v. The Chief Executive Officer

Madras HC18 Dec 2024WP(MD)/22007/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench held that the Wakf Board lacks authority to conduct elections. The impugned election notification dated 03.08.2023 was quashed, and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to monitor future elections.

What did the court decide?

The impugned election notification dated 03.08.2023 is set aside and Mr. R.Maheswaran is appointed as Advocate Commissioner with a remuneration of Rs.50,000/-.

Rahamathulla.K Vs The Chief Executive… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.22007 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 18.12.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.22007 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD) No.18348 of 2023

K.Rahamathulla

... Petitioner

/vs./

1.The Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, Jaffar Syrang Street, Vallal Seethakathi Nagar, Chennai.

¶11

2.The Superintendent of Waqf, Ramanathapuram Division, Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, Regional Office, 176/11, 1^st Floor, Tharpasayanam Road, Vellipattinam, Ramanathapuram.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned election notification issued by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.22007 of 2023

¶17

Na.Ka.No.GS107/The.Aa./Va.Ka./RAM/2023 dated 03.08.2023 and quash the same as illegal.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.S.A.Ajmal Khan

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The writ petition has been filed challenging the election notification issued by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.GS107/The.Aa./Va.Ka./RAM/2023 dated 03.08.2023.

¶22

Today, ie., 18.12.2024, in a similar writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.30305 of 2024, this Court following the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohammed Yusuf Vs. Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, rep by its Chief Executive Officer, Tirunelveli reported in 2023 (3) CWC 143 , had held that the Wakf Board or the CEO do not have any authority for conducting the elections and therefore, they cannot also direct the Superintendent of Wakf to conduct the elections. Hence, I am inclined to set aside the election notification impugned herein.

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD) No.22007 of 2023

¶26

In fine, the Writ Petition stands allowed and the election notification impugned dated 03.08.2023 is set aside appointing one Mr.R.Maheswaran, (Enrol.No.1858/2008, Mobile No.99945 37887), Chamber No.158, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Building, Madurai, as Advocate Commissioner to monitor that the elections are being conducted in a fair and proper manner. The Advocate Commissioner would be entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- as remuneration. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶27

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No mm

¶28

18.12.2024

¶29

3/4

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD) No.22007 of 2023

¶32

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶33

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.22007 of 2023

¶35

18.12.2024

¶36

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

¶37

4/4

Rahamathulla.K v. The Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahamathulla.K v. The Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Alex Mathew, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M/s Narmadha Industries Vs The Corporation Commissioner

Boopathy.G Vs The Commissioner

Shri Ram Chandra Mission Vs the Commissioner

P.Jeyaraj, S/O.Palchamy Vs the District Collector

K.Chandra, Vs the Executive Engineer Cum