Dismissed¶26

Zeeshan v. The Tamil nadu Waqf Board

MADRAS HIGH COURT (Single Bench, S.Sounthar, J., 21.01.2025) – W.P.No.21996 of 2022

Madras HC21 Jan 2025WP/21996/2022

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court writ dismissed — joint/hereditary Muthawallis cannot remove co-Muthawalli by majority resolution; removal power exclusively with Wakf Board under Section 64 Wakf Act 1995 on specified grounds; representation lacking specific allegations — no mandamus to Tamil Nadu Wakf Board; liberty to file fresh representation with specific allegations, to be considered after hearing respondent 3; W.P.No.21996 of 2022; S.Sounthar, J.; 21.01.2025; Munir Khan Pious and Religious Charities Wakf; Article 226; Writ of Mandamus; Wakf Act 1995.

What did the court decide?

Under Section 64 of the Wakf Act, 1995, only the Wakf Board can remove a muthawalli from his office, and that too on specified grounds. ¶26

Zeeshan Vs The Tamil nadu Waqf Board — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should direct respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioners' representations dated 05.08.2020 and 01.12.2020 and further direct them to conduct an enquiry in accordance with the Wakf Act, 1995. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

The representation submitted before the Wakf Board contained no specific allegation against respondent 3 seeking his removal under Section 64 of the Wakf Act.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Under Section 64 of the Wakf Act, 1995, only the Wakf Board can remove a muthawalli from his office, and that too on specified grounds.

¶26

Key takeaways

The petitioners (co-Muthawallis) cannot pass a resolution and remove one of the co-Muthawallis by majority.ratio¶26
In the circumstances, the Court declined to issue any positive direction to respondent 1 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners.ratio¶26
The dismissal will not bar the petitioners from submitting a fresh representation to the Wakf Board seeking respondent 3's removal on specific allegations; if such a representation is made, it is for the Wakf Board to consider it on its own merits, in accordance with law, after giving sufficient opportunity to respondent 3.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (Single Bench, S.Sounthar, J., 21.01.2025) — W.P.No.21996 of 2022 — Zeeshan and Asima Begum, hereditary Muthawallis of Munir Khan Pious and Religious Charities Wakf, sought a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 directing the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board and its Chief Executive Officer to consider their representations dated 5.8.2020 and 1.12.2020 and conduct an enquiry under the Wakf Act 1995 against respondent 3, a co-Muthawalli removed by them through a majority resolution. HELD dismissing the petition: (i) Section 64 of the Wakf Act, 1995 empowers only the Wakf Board to remove a muthawalli on specified grounds, so co-Muthawallis cannot effect removal by majority resolution; (ii) the representation contained no specific allegation against respondent 3 warranting removal under Section 64, hence no positive direction was issued; (iii) the dismissal does not preclude a fresh representation with specific allegations, which the Board must consider on its own merits in accordance with law after giving respondent 3 sufficient opportunity. No costs.

¶1

W.P.No.21996 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.01.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P No.21996 of 2022

¶7

1.Zeeshan

¶8

2.Asima Begum ...Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board Rep. by its Chairman No.1, Jaffer syrang street, Mannady Chennai-600 001.

¶11

2.The Chief Executive officer The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board No.1, Jaffer syrang street, Mannady Chennai -600 001.

¶12

3.Mohamed Alijah Khan S/o. Late. Md Muthaher Ahmed Khan Joint Muthawalli of Munir Khan pious and Religious Charity Wakf No. 48, 2nd street, Dargh colony Kamaraj Nagar Zamin Pallavaram, Chenani 600 043 ....Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondent to consider the representation dated 5.8.2020 and 1.12.2020 and further direct the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct enquiry in accordance with Wakf Act 1995

¶14

1/5

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.21996 of 2022

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.Azimath Begam For Respondent : Mr. Haja Mohideen Gisthi for R1 & R2 Standing Counsel Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed for R3

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The writ petition is filed seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to

¶20

to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 05.08.2020 and 01.12.2020 and further direct the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct enquiry in accordance with the Wakf Act, 1995.

¶21

The petitioners herein are hereditary Muthawallis' of wakf called Munir Khan Pious and Religious Charities Wakf. The said wakf is under the supervisory control of the 1^st respondent. Originally, the Wakif namely Munir Khan Sahib was a Muthawalli during his lifetime. After his death, his legal heirs have been managing the wakf as per the mandate of the wakf deed. The petitioners and 3^rd respondent have been acting as joint Muthawallis' of the said wakf. It is stated by the petitioners that 3^rd respondent started acting illegally for his personal gain against the interest of the wakf. Therefore, they

¶22

2/5

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.21996 of 2022

¶25

passed a resolution by majority removing him from the muthawalliship and the said resolution was forwarded to the 1^st respondent by submitting a representation seeking necessary action and the same has not been considered. Hence, the petitioner has come before this Court.

¶26

Section 64 of Wakf Act, 1995 enables only the Wakf Board to remove the muthawalli from his office on specified grounds. The petitioners cannot pass a resolution and remove one of the co-muthawalli by majority. Further, in the representation submitted before the Wakf Board, no specific allegation is made against the 3^rd respondent seeking his removal under Section 64 of Wakf Act. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to issue any positive direction to the 1^st respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, the dismissal of the writ petition will not come in a way of the petitioner submitting any fresh representation before the Wakf Board seeking removal of 3^rd respondent on specific allegation. If any such representation is submitted by the petitioners, it is for the Wakf Board to consider the same on its' own merits and in accordance with law after giving sufficient opportunity to the 3^rd respondent.

¶27

3/5

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.21996 of 2022

¶30

With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. No

¶31

costs.

¶32

21.01.2025

¶33

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No nr

¶34

To 1.The Tamil nadu Wakf Board Rep. by its Chairman No.1, Jaffer syrang street, Mannady Chennai-600 001. 2.The Chief Executive officer The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board No.1, Jaffer syrang street, Mannady Chennai -600 001.

¶35

4/5

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.No.21996 of 2022

¶38

S.SOUNTHAR, J. nr

¶39

W.P No.21996 of 2022

¶40

21.01.2025