Madras High Court Upholds Waqf Board’s Direct Takeover Of Mosque | Action Justified Due To Repeated Financial Irregularities And Non-Compliance With Statutory Duties
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Judicature at Madras Single Bench of Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira has dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board’s resolution to assume direct management of a religious institution. The Court held that the resolution passed by the Board did not warrant any interference and found no procedural violation that could invalidate the administrative action undertaken.
Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira concluded that the decision of the Waqf Board to take over the management was legally sustainable under the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995. The Court noted that the petitioner had been afforded an opportunity to participate in the enquiry and that the allegations of misappropriation and mismanagement were adequately supported by material evidence. Accordingly, the civil revision petition was dismissed and all connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The judgement upheld the authority of the Waqf Board to act in the interest of proper administration and protection of waqf properties.
The case concerns a civil revision petition filed against an order passed by the Tamil Nadu Waqf Tribunal. The dispute arose following a resolution passed by the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board on 11.05.2022, wherein it assumed direct management of a religious institution, Masjid-E-Farkundha. The petitioner, who had been elected President/Mutawalli in an election conducted via secret ballot on 10.11.2019, challenged the resolution.
The Waqf in question had been surveyed and notified by the Government of Tamil Nadu and registered with the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board. Following his election, the petitioner collected public funds and began the construction of a minara for the mosque. On 18.02.2021, the Waqf Inspector summoned the petitioner for an enquiry citing non-submission of accounts for approximately ten years, non-payment of contribution amounting to Rs. 1,71,210/-, and unauthorized construction of the minara.
The petitioner contended that he was not responsible for the past ten years of accounts and claimed that the construction had been previously authorized. After the enquiry, the Board instructed the petitioner to maintain proper accounts and consult the Senior Accounts Officer for further guidance. However, continued administrative and financial irregularities were cited in notices issued on 19.03.2021 and 29.07.2021.
Despite warnings, complaints regarding improper financial practices persisted. On 11.05.2022, following an enquiry involving both the petitioner and complainants, the Board passed a resolution assuming direct management of the mosque. The petitioner challenged this move by filing O.A. No. 46 of 2022 before the Waqf Tribunal, which was dismissed.
The respondents submitted that the petitioner’s tenure was for a fixed term of three years, expiring on 09.11.2022, and that the Board’s decision to assume management stemmed from multiple irregularities, including fund mismanagement and failure to maintain statutory records. The petitioner had also allegedly continued transactions even after the Board took control, reflecting disregard for the Board’s directive.
The third and fourth respondents, who were previous and current office bearers, supported the Board’s action, stating that funds had been misused, particularly during the lockdown period. The fourth respondent claimed he resigned due to misappropriations he discovered, which were not addressed despite his repeated demands.
Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira stated, "The allegations levelled against the revision petitioner are threefold, one being that improper rendition of accounts to Waqf Board, the second one being mismanagement of accounts and non-payment contribution to the Waqf Board and the other one being the action on the part of the petitioner in proceeding with minara construction without obtaining an NOC from the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board."
The Court noted, "The Waqf Board has not taken a drastic decision at once on coming through a single event of misappropriation of fund, but, it is seen that improper maintenance of accounts and misappropriation of funds seem to be a recurring practice in the petitioner's Waqf."
It was further observed that, "The petitioner, having assumed the office of muttawalli from 10.11.2019, cannot simply shirk his liability to render accounts as contemplated under Section 46 of the Waqf Act, 1995 by contending that such misappropriation had been persisting even prior to his tenure."
The Court addressed the petitioner’s argument about not receiving the audit report, remarking, "The petitioner had not at all raised such a plea either during the enquiry before the Waqf Board or in the Original Application filed before the Waqf Tribunal."
Justice Chandira cited Section 48 of the Waqf Act, stating, "The Board shall examine the auditor’s report, and may call for the explanation of any person in regard to any matter mentioned therein, and shall pass such orders as it thinks fit including orders for the recovery of the amount certified by the auditor under sub-section (2) of section 47."
The Court stated the discretionary nature of the Board's power under Section 48, noting, "The language employed in the above legal provision does not make it as a mandatory on the part of the authority to call for any explanation."
Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira directed that:
"The Waqf Tribunal, after considering the merits of the case and the documents furnished by the parties, had rightly found that the Waqf Board has passed the impugned resolution assuming direct management of the petitioner's Waqf, which does not warrant any interference."
Further, the Court held, "The civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. L. Gavaskar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Haja Mohideen Gisthi, Advocate for R1 and R2; Mr. A. Raja Mohammed, Advocate for R3 and R4
Case Title: T. Mammu Sahib v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board and Others
Case Number: C.R.P. No.88 of 2023
Bench: Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira
[Read/Download order]
