(Common Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No. 23652 of 2025.)

Common Judgment

Dr. G. Jayachandran, J.

1. These two intra court appeals viz., W.A(MD)No.3264 of 2025 and W.A (MD)No.3274 of 2025 are directed against the order dated 25..11.2025 passed in W.P(MD)No.23652 of 2025.

2. Karaikudi Ikya Muslim Jamath Pallivasal is a Federation of 9 Jamaths in Sivagangai District falling within the jurisdiction of Waqf Inspector, Ramanathapuram. The Executive Committee of the Ikya Jamath ( Federation) are to be selected from the representatives of the 9 constituent Jamaths. The electorate for the Ikya Jamath consist of three members from each jamath totally 27 members. The tenure of the previous Executive Commitee expired in the year 2021. However, due to the rival between two groups one by the team headed by Janab A.K.M.Mohideen Pitchai and another team headed by Janab M.A. Abdul Raheman, conflicting claims in respect of the representatives of the constituent Jamaths and the Executive Members of the Ikya Jamath (federation) arose. As a result several writ petitions were filed. The details of those writ petitions form part of the order passed in W.P(MD)No.19646 of 2025 dated 21.07.2025 filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to conduct election of ‘Kattu Thalaivasal Muslim Jamath Pallivasal’ by A.C.R.Naseer and Abudi Bazeer, who are the erstwhile office bearers of the constituent Jamath namely, Kattu Thalivasal Muslim Jamath Pallivasal.

3. Considering the inter se dispute between the Jamathars of Kattu Thalivasal Muslim Jamath Pallivasal, this Court issued the following direction in WP(MD)No.19646 of 2025 :-

                     “26. Therefore, it is evident that there is a inter se dispute among the Jamathars of the fourth respondent/Wakf. The proforma also does not mention the tenure of elected body and method of election of the Office bearers of the Wakf. The fourth respondent/Wakf has been operating based on the customs. This has created an internal power struggle within the Wakf, although the elected body is meant to administer the Wakf and for the welfare of the member of congregator i.e., Jamathars.

                     27. Considering the same, there shall be a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to frame a scheme under Section 69 of the Wakf Act, 1995. As far as the request of the petitioner under Section 65 of the Wakf Act, 1995 is concerned, it appears from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the fifth respondent that the elections were held on 06.09.2024 and on 07.09.2024, an application has been filed under Section 42 of the Wakf Act, 1995 before the third respondent/Superintendent of Wakf to recognise the elected body. The statement of the learned counsel for the fifth respondent stands recorded that the petitioners were also elected as an Ordinary Member and were not elected to the post in the Management Committee i.e., the President, Vice-President(s), Treasurer and Secretary of the fourth respondent Wakf.

                     28. Therefore, in case the petitioners are aggrieved by the elections which were held on 06.09.2024 and 07.09.2024 , it is open for the petitioners to independently challenge the same under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 as has been ordered by this Court in W.P.No.18959 of 2022. Since the application has been filed under Section 42 of the Wakf Act, 1995, the petitioners shall be heard before appropriate orders are passed.

                     29. Meanwhile, the Wakf Board shall exercise its power to frame a proper Scheme to further interest of the members of congregator i.e., Jamathars, within a period of twelve (12) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

4. Meanwhile, the Chief Executive Officer of the Tamilnadu Waqf Board, vide proceedings dated 25.06.2025, recognised and approved the Executive Committee consisting of 11 members headed by Janab A.K.M. Mohideen Pitchai as President, for the Karaikudi Ikya Muslim Jamath Pallivasal for the period from 25.06.2025 to 24.06.2028.

5. Thiru.Ali Mastan, who is the first respondent in W.A(MD)No.3264 of 2025 and the Appellant in W.A(MD)No.3274 of 2025, aggrieved by the proceedings of the Chief Executive Officer of the Tamilnadu Waqf Board recognising and approving the Executive Committee of the Karaikudi Ikya Muslim Jamath Pallivasal for the period from 25.06.2025 to 24.06.2028, sought for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings dated 25.06.2025 in W.P(MD)No.23652 of 2025. In his writ petition, Ali Masthan contended that, the three constituent Jamaths namely Bazaar Pallivasal, Muslim Kabarsthan and Edga Thozhugai Palli Waqfs, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District, are all under the same management. The rule of succession to the office of the Muthavaliship is by customary selection in the General Body meeting. After expiry of the tenure of the existing office bearers on 15.05.2021, he as the Secretary, took steps for conducting General Body meeting for electing the Managing Committee for these three Jamaths, but on the instruction of the Waqf Board Chairman and the Superintendent of the Sivagangai Zone Waaf, he postponed the meeting until the new management Committee is elected for the four other constituent Jamaths namely, Muthupattinam Jamath Pallivasal, College Road Pallivasal, Senjai Muslim Jamath Pallivasal and Meeenakshipuram Mahaboobpalayam Muslim Jamath Pallivasal. Hence, he is continuing in the office of Secretary and operating the Bank accounts. While so, one N.Syed Buhari claiming that he had conducted the General Body Meeting of the three jamaths on 17.09.2024, sent communication to the Waqf Board on 20.09.2024 for approval. In this connection, the Chairman of the Waqf conducted an enquiry and he participated in the enquiry and reported that no proper General Body Meeting was conducted. While election to four other jamaths are yet to be conducted and the approval of the Jamath Committee of Senjai Muslim Jamath Pallivasal is pending before the Board, the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board has passed the impugned proceedings on 25.06.2025 to favour Syed Mohammed Buhari.

6. Thiru.Sathikbatcha member of yet another Jamath also being aggrieved by the proceedings of the Chief Executive Officer of Waqf Board, filed W.P(MD)No.23726 of 2025 and sought issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the proceeding of the Chief executive Officer dated 25.06.2025 to quash the same and to recognise him and his team as elected office bearer to administer the three constituent Jamaths namely Bazaar Pallivasal, Muslim Kabarsthan and Edga Thozhugai Palli Wakfs, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

7. The Learned Judge, passed a common order on 26.11.2025 in the writ petitions in W.P(MD)No.23652 of 2025 and W.P(ND)No.23726 of 2025. In this common order, the learned single Judge, taking into consideration the rival submission regarding the status of Ali Masthan, the writ petitioner in W.P(MD)No. 23652 of 2025, held that only if Ali Masthan is able to show that he commands the majority of his Jamath (Senjai Muslim Jamath) his challenge would be construed only as that of a solitary member. Therefore, to resolve the issue, the Learned single Judge appointed an Advocate Commissioner to conduct the election for the Senjai Muslim Jamath. If Ali Mustan is able to muster majority in his favour, the impugned proceedings of the Chief Executive Officer dated 25.06.2025 will stand recalled, if he fails to muster majority, the proceedings will hold good.

8. One group representing 7 of constituent Jamath joined together had filed W.A(MD)No.3264 of 2025 challenging the order passed in W.P(MD)No.23652 of 2025. In this appeal, Ali Masthan and the representatives of the rival group of 6 constituent Jamaths along with the Waqf Board Chairman, the Chief Executive Officer and the Superintendent are respondents. Citing the order dated 25.08.2025 passed in W.P(MD)No. 23146 of 2025, wherein the Learned Single Judge has quashed the proceedings dated 25.06.2025 of the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board in respect of Senjai Muslim Jamath Pallivasal on the ground of violation of the principle of natural justice, the appellants contend that, the same reasoning is applicable for all other jamaths and the Ikya Jamath also. Therefore, the Learned Single Judge ought not to have put Ali Masthan to prove his majority as pre condition to challenge the impugned proceedings of recognising the Executive Committee without following the due process. While practice is to select its representatives, elections were conducted for 6 jamaths contrary to the custom. Hence, the appellants in W.A(MD)No.3264 of 2025 pray to set aside the order passed in W.P(MD)No.23652 of 2025.

9. Ali Masthan, who is the appellant in W.A(MD)No.3274 of 2025, contended that this Court, in his earlier Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.17087 of 2025, had directed the Waqf Board to examine the applications of Ali Masthan and Pakkir Mohammed for recognition under Section 42 of the Waqf Act. This order was passed on 25.06.2025. In his other writ petition viz., W.P(MD)No.23146 of 2025, vide order dated 25.08.2025, this Court has set aside the recognition of one Pakkir Mohammed as representative of Senjai Muslim Jamath Pallivasal under the proceedings of the Chief Executive Officer, dated 25.06.2025 on the ground that the same is not in consonance with the order made in W.P(MD)No.17087 of 2025, dated 25.06.2025 and remitted back to the Chief Executive Officer to pass a fresh order on merits after hearing the petitioner(Ali Masthan). While so, the order of the learned Judge in W.P(MD)No.23652 of 2025 for conducting election for only one member namely Ali Masthan alone is illegal, arbitrary and completely contrary to the earlier order made in W.P(MD)No.17087 of 2025. The order of the Learned Single Judge passed in W.P(MD)No.23652 of 2025 directing Ali Masthan to prove whether he can muster majority in his Jamath is indirect validation of the illegal elections for the constituent Jamaths and the Ikya Muslim Jamath.

10. The records reveal that the Executive Committee for the Karaikudi Ikya Muslim Jamath after expiry of its term in the year 2021, entangled in litigations between two groups controlling the 9 consitutent Jamaths. As a result, one Syed Mohammed Buhari had filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.7171 of 2025 for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the Waqf Board to recognise him as the Muthavalli of Karaikudi Ikya Muslim Jamath by concluding the enquiry initiated by the Board. In this writ petition, this Court, vide order dated 17.03.2025 passed the following order:-

                     “4.Considering the limited scope of prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court directs the respondent to consider the petitioner's application dated 20.09.2024 seeking approval of Mutawalliship for the tenure from 2024 to 2027 and pass appropriate orders solely on its own merits and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, as well as all other persons, who may be interested in the subject matter, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the matter and that it is open to the first respondent to consider the same on its own merits.”

11. In the above circumstances, the rival claims made for recognition under Section 42 of the Waqf Act were considered and after enquiry by a three members Committee, the proceedings of the Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board dated 25.06.2025 came to be passed. Unfortunately, on the date of passing the said proceedings, few other writ petitions in connection with election of the Jamath representatives were pending and orders were passed. Particularly, in W.P(MD)No.17087 of 2025, vide order dated 25.06.2025 Court directed the Board to examine the applications given by Ali Mastan and Pakkir Mohammed made under Section 42 of the Waqf Act for recognition in respect of Senjai Muslim Jamath. In W.P(MD)No.19646 of 2025 filed by A.C.R.Naseer and A.Abudi Bazeer sought to take over the management of Kattu Thalaivasal Muslim Jamath Pallivasal directly, in exercise of power under section 64(5) of the Wakf Act. This Court, considering the inter se dispute among the Jamathars, had issued a direction to the Waqf Board to frame a scheme exercising power under Section 69 of the Waqf Act for the said Pallivasal, within a period of 12 months from the date of receipt of the order.

12. As per the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995 any change in the management of a registered waqf, the incoming Muthavalli is bound to notify the change to the Waqf Board forthwith. In so far as Karaikudi Iyka Muslim Jamath, two applications under Section 42 of the Act were received by the Board for notification. One group under Syed Mohammed Buhari and another group under Ali Masthan. In view of the rival claim, Board had constituted a three member Committee to look into the rival claim and submit report. Based on the Committee Report, Board had resolved to recognise the application from Syed Mohammed Buhari, consisting of 12 members Executive Committee headed by Janab A.K.M. Mohideen Pitchai Ambalam as its President. The decision of the Board is communicated by the Chief Executive Officer, vide his letter dated 25.06.2025, which is impugned in the writ petitions in W.P(MD)No.23652 of 2025.

13. Like in the case of the Iyka Jamath (Federation) factional dispute in some of the constituent Jamaths and rival claim for management received by the Board and the same were taken note by the Board. We find in the common counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Waqf Board chairman, CEO and Superintendent, it is stated that both the factions participated in the enquiry conducted on 30.05.2025 and the principle of natural justice was duly followed. It is further stated that, as against Ali Masthan and his faction members, there were allegations of misappropriation and no support to them from the Jamathars. However with an intention to continue in the management of the Ikya Jamath, writ petitions are filed to stall the transfer of management to the duly selected committee. In case of any dispute relating to the decision of the Board, the aggrieved party have a statutory remedy to approach the Waqf Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Waqf Act.

14. On appreciating the rival claims in the writ petitions under consideration in these appeals as well as the orders passed in other writ petitions connected with the Ikya Jamath and its constituent Jamaths, it is clear as crystal that the group of office bearers, who were holding post in the jamaths, not inclined to demit the office to pave way for the newly selected members. No doubt, there is disputes regarding the manner of selection/election of the office bearers and the approval granted by the Board to one faction. Nonetheless, when the aggrieved parties have a efficacious and alternate remedy under the statute to get redressal by filing an appeal before the Waqf Tribunal, they had approached the writ Court. Unfortunately again, the writ Court instead of considering the petitions on facts and law, had ventured to testing the support of Ali Masthan by ordering election for him alone. The result of the election is not in favour of Ali Masthan. The Advocate Commissioner report reveals that Ali Masthan was able to get the support of only 34 Jamathars out of 272 votes casted. No doubt, the order to conduct election solely for Ali Masthan is the subject matter of the appeals and we are also of the considered opinion that, the writ Court ought not to have disposed of the writ petitions putting to test the support of Ali Masthan muster among his jamathars.

15. We take into consideration the Waqf Act, in case of mismanagement or dispute or vacancy or in case of any other exigencies, the Waqf Board can exercise the power under Section 63 of the Act and appoint any person as Muthavalli for a period specified. It has also power to assume direct management in exercise the power under Section 65 of the Act. Any decision of the Board is appealable under Section 83 of the Act.

16. Hence, we dispose the writ appeals with the following directions.

                     a) Any person aggrieved / interested by the decision of the Board dated 25.06.2025 regarding the constitution of the Committee for the Karaikudi Ikya Muslim Jamath and its constituent Jamaths, are given liberty to challenge the same before the Waqf Tribunal under section 83 of the Act, within a period of one month from today.

                     b) If any such appeal is filed, the Waqf Tribunal shall decide it within a period of 6 months from the date of filing the appeal.

                     c) W declare that the committee recognised by the Board as per the Letter dated 25.06.2025 shall for all purpose, deemed to be a committee appointed in exercise of power under section 63 of the Act. The tenure of the said Board shall be subject to the outcome of the appeal permitted to file by the persons aggrieved.

                     d) If the Tribunal not able to decide the appeals within the time prescribed in clause (b) above due to non co-operation of any of the faction, the Board shall exercise its power under section 65 of the Act and assume direct management.

16. Accordingly, these Writ Appeal stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.