(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records of the respondent vide proceedings dated 19.01.2024 in Se.Mu.Order 13513/09/B7/Ve in so far as restricting the tenure of the petitioner till 24.08.2025 and quash the same.)

1. The Writ Petitioner seeks issuance of Writ of Certiorari, challenging the proceedings of the respondent dated 19.01.2024, insofar as restricting the tenure of the petitioner till 24.08.2025 and quash the same.

2. I have heard Mr.N.A.Nassir Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Haja Mohideen Gisthi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/Board.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Syed Noor Ahmed Sha Kadri Dargah at Katpadi Road, Vellore is a registered and notified Waqf under the supervisory control of the Waqf Board. The rule of succession for the said Waqf is hereditary as substantiated through the proforma and records maintained even by the respondent/Board. After the demise of the petitioner’s father Abdullah Basha, who was the hereditary trustee till 1987, his mother Begam Bee was discharging duties of Muthawalli till her demise on 05.07.2020. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further state that after the demise of the petitioner’s mother, Begum Bee, the petitioner was recognized as the hereditary trustee by the respondent, by it proceedings dated 25.08.2022 along with his sister Habeeba Bee.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Board has erroneously restricted the tenure of the hereditary muthawalliship for a period of three years which expired on 24.08.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there can be no restriction of the tenure of the hereditary muthawalli and it is against the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995. It is also the case of the petitioner that his sister was guilty of misappropriation and mismanagement and she was removed from muthawalliship under Section 64 of the Waqf Act by the respondent on 19.01.2024. The petitioner challenges the restriction of the tenure of the hereditary muthawalliship till 24.08.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the following decisions:

                   (i) Mohammed Sulthan Sheriff Vs. The Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, in W.P. No.22496 of 2024 dated 27.08.2024; and

                   (ii) Apsar Peeran Shuttari Saheballa Vs. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Rep by its Chief Executive Officer, in W.P. No.19032 of 2023 dated 23.08.2023.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Board Mr.Haja Mohideen Gisthi, would submit that the petitioner has approached the Court belatedly and is not entitled to any relief, despite the tenure having ended in August 2025. The learned Standing Counsel would submit that the petitioner has filed the writ petition only in October 2025 and as on date, the petitioner does not hold the office of muthawalli and therefore, the petitioner cannot maintain the writ petition and his remedy is only to invoke proceedings under Section 83 of the Waqf Act. The learned Senior Counsel also relies on the following decisions:

                   (i) Syed Ansaruddin Vs. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board by its Secretary and 6 others, reported in 1992 (2) L.W. 685;

                   (ii) Board of Wakf, West Bengal and another Vs. Anis Fatma Begum and another, reported in (2010) 14 SCC 588; and

                   (iii) S.V.Cheriyakoya Thangal Vs. S.V.P.Pookoya and others, reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 1586.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, including the judgments relied on by the counsel on either side.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been appointed as the hereditary muthawalli, subsequent to the demise of his mother, alongwith his sister and thereafter, in January 2024, his sister was removed invoking the powers under Section 64 of the Waqf Act. It is in the admitted case of the respondent that the post of Muthawalli is hereditary in the present case. Therefore, the short question that arises for consideration is whether such a hereditary muthawalli’s tenure can be restricted by the Board. The issue is no longer res integra. This Court in Apsar Peeran Shuttari Saheballa's case (referred herein supra), held that the Board cannot restrict the tenure of the hereditary muthawalli and if there any complaints against the hereditary muthawalli, the only course open to the Board would be to take action in accordance with Section 64 of the Waqf Act. In Mohammed Sulthan Sheriff’s case, (referred herein supra) this Court took a similar view and held that without recourse to Section 64 of the Waqf Act, the Board cannot impose a restriction on the tenure of the hereditary muthawalli.

8. It is contended by Mr.Haja Mohideen Gisthi, learned Standing Counsel that these judgments would not apply to the facts of the present case since in both those cases, the writ petitioner was holding the post of muthawalli at the time of filing of the writ petition, but however, in the present case when the tenure has already lapsed, the petitioner cannot take shelter under the decisions rendered in the above cases.

9. Insofar as the decision in Syed Ansaruddin’s case, (referred herein supra), that was a case where the issue before the Court was in a First Appeal arising out of a Civil Suit, where this Court held that the Court does not have power to appoint any person as hereditary muthawalli under Mohammedan Law and a prayer for declaration can be granted by the Court only be putting its seal of approval of a pre-existing right of hereditary muthawalliship. I do not see how this decision would apply to the facts of the present case. In Board of Waqf, West Bengal’s case, (referred herein supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Waqf Tribunal under Section 83, has power to decide all disputes, question and matters whatsoever arising and relating to waqf or waqf property and the Civil Court as well as High Court cannot straightaway entertain matters related to waqf or waqf property.

10. In S.V.Cheriyakoya Thangal's case, (referred herein supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Waqf Tribunal is deemed to be a Civil Court having same powers that can be exercised by the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure and the power of superintendence cannot be confined to routine affairs of a Waqf, but includes a situation where a dispute arises while managing the property and also a right of a person to be a muthawalli. Here the present case does not deal with any such issue that arose before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Admittedly, the petitioner has been recognized as the hereditary muthawalli of the Waqf and what is under challenge is only the restriction of his tenure for three years.

11. Insofar as alternate relief being available before the Waqf Tribunal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that mere existence of an alternate relief need not drive the aggrieved party to taking resort to the same, when it would be a long drawn and time consuming affair. The short question in the present case is only with regard to the power of respondent Board to restrict the tenure of the muthawalli. Admittedly, the respondent has not been able to demonstrate that they have such a power. This Court, as already discussed in Apsar Peeran Shuttari Saheballa and Mohammed Sulthan Sheriff’s case has held that even for removing a hereditary muthawalli, the Board has to necessarily initiate proceedings under Section 64 of the Waqf Act. The said provision cannot be bypassed, merely because the petitioner has not approached the Court immediately after his period came to close in August 2025.

12. The delay is only about two months and though the order of the respondent restricting the petitioner’s tenure as contended by the learned Standing Counsel was made even in January 2024, I find that when the action of the respondent is without any source of power, mere delay cannot be put against the writ petitioner to non suit the petitioner to the relief which he is otherwise entitled to. Also on the same lines, merely because the tenure of the petitioner has lapsed in August 2025, in the eyes of the respondent, the petitioner is no longer muthawalli, it cannot be contended that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the restriction of his tenure. When law on this subject is abundantly clear that the Board has no power to restrict the tenure of hereditary muthawalli, which is a right available to the hereditary muthavalii, till his life time. Any contrary orders passed are clearly unsustainable and the writ petitioner is well within his rights to challenge the same by invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

13. For all the above reasons, I am inclined to allow the Writ Petition, setting aside the restriction of tenure of the petitioner to the post of hereditary muthawalli till 24.08.2025.

14. In fine, this Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs.