Mohammed Sheriff. P vs. Tamil Nadu Waqf Board

Facts

The petitioner, P. Mohammed Sherif, filed a Writ Petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents (Tamil Nadu Waqf Board and its officials) to approve an Adhoc Administration Committee and Office Bearers he recommended for the Mohideen Aandavar Palivaasal. This followed previous litigation concerning the trusteeship and administration of the same Jamath. In prior writ petitions (W.P.(MD) No.16698 of 2020 and W.P.(MD) Nos.7915 & 15266 of 2021), the court had directed the respondents to conduct fresh elections within six months and permitted aggrieved parties to approach the Wakf Tribunal. The Superintendent of the Waqf Board had recommended an interim committee due to rival groups and internal power struggles, but no appointment was made. The petitioner's representation dated 22.03.2024 sought approval of his recommended committee.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's request for direct approval of the Adhoc Administration Committee and Office Bearers could not be considered straightway. Instead, the Court directed the respondents to take stock of the prevailing situation at the pallivasal to ensure a proper selection of office bearers in accordance with the proforma of the Waqf. The respondents were instructed to facilitate the participation of fighting parties in the selection process. This exercise was to be completed within 30 days from the receipt of the order. The respondents were also granted liberty to seek police protection if necessary for the selection process, and the police were directed to provide such protection. The Writ Petition was disposed of with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to approve the Adhoc Administration Committee and Office Bearers recommended by the petitioner for the Mohideen Aandavar Palivaasal, considering the representation dated 22.03.2024? (Question of law and fact, turning on the powers and duties of the Waqf Board under the relevant provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the approval of his recommended committee for the peaceful functioning of the Jamath. Respondents' contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents took notice. The judgment does not explicitly record specific arguments from the respondents regarding the petitioner's recommendation, but the court's order implies a need for a proper selection process rather than outright approval of the petitioner's nominees.