S.A.Uthuman Mohaideen vs The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board

Court
Madras High Court

WP(MD) No. 29648 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
WP(MD) No. 29648 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011457212026}
and
WMP(MD) Nos. 22550 & 22551 of 2026
S.A.Uthuman Mohaideen,
S/o.S.U.Alla Pitchai Sahib,
149, Kalvath Nayagam Street,
Kadayanallur, Tenkasi District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board.
Represented by its Chairman,
Chennai.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, Chennai.
3. The Superintendent of Waqf,
Durga Building,
No.54, S.N.High Road,
Sripuram, Tenkasi.
4. The Muthawali,
Keezhatheru Naina Mohammed Jumma Pallivasal,
Kadayanallur, Tenkasi.
5. K.J.Sheik Mohaideen
No.75/8, Kalandar Masthan Street,
Kadayanallur, Tenkasi - 627751.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call
for the records and to quash the impugned proceedings passed by the second
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )

WP(MD) No. 29648 of 2026
respondent herein vide proceedings in Se.Mu.Order.16721/02/Aa1 T.Veli
dated 7/9/2026 as far as Melakatchi representation and pass appropriate
direction to recognize the petitioner (S.A.Uthumal Mohaideen) as
Melakatchi representative in the administration of Kadayanallur Keelatheru
Naina Mohammed Jumma Pallivasal forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram
For R1 to R3 : Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed
Standing Counsel
For R5 : Mr.H.Arumugam
ORDER
Order dated 07.09.2026 of the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board is challenged
in this Writ Petition.
2. The dispute pertains to nomination of a representative of
Melakatchi to Keezhatheru Naina Mohammed Jumma Pallivasal. The
petitioner was nominated by Kadayanallur Lebbai Sahib Muslim Jamatha
Mahajanasaba Melakatchi and the fifth respondent was nominated by Keela
Muhalla Melakatch Muslim Jamath. By the impugned order, the nomination
of the fifth respondent was accepted and that of the petitioner was rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order primarily on two
grounds. The first ground of challenge is that principles of natural justice
__________
Page 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )

WP(MD) No. 29648 of 2026
were violated and that the petitioner was not heard. It is submitted that the
petitioner was constrained to merely submit a written representation. The
second ground of challenge is that vital documents submitted by the
petitioner in support of his nomination, such as the sponsor letter dated
09.02.2026, the communication dated 27.03.2026 and report of the Waqf
Inspector, Tenkasi, dated 08.05.2026 recommending the petitioner as the
representative of Melakatchi, were not taken into consideration.
4. Responding to these contentions, learned counsel for the fifth
respondent submits that both parties were heard and that all the documents
were considered before recording findings based on appreciation of
evidence.
5. Learned counsel for the Waqf Board submits that principles of
natural justice were complied with. He relies on the first and second
paragraphs of the impugned order in that regard.
6. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the following is
recorded therein:
“ S.A.
Nkw;gb [dhg;. cJkhd ; KifjPd;
epakpf;fg;gl;lJ Fwpj;J ftdj;Jld ; guprPyid
nra;j thupak;> Nkw;gb egupd; epakdkhdJ Nkw;gb
__________
Page 3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )

WP(MD) No. 29648 of 2026
tf;gpd ; 1999 Mk ; Mz;L Vw;g;gLj;jg;gl;l
epu;thfj;jpl;lj;jpw;F vjpuhf cs;sjhf thupak;
fUJfpwJ. NkYk;> epu;thfj;jpl;ljpYs;s ruj;Jfspy;
VNjDk; khw;wk; nra;ag;gl Ntz;Lnkdpy; mjw;F
jdpahf [khj;jpduplk ; MNyhrid / Ml;Nrgid
Nfhug;gl;L thupaj;jpd; guprPyidf;F cl;gLj;jp>
thupaj ; jPu;khdj;jpd; mbg;gilapy ; murpjo;
ntspaplg;gl;Nl eilKiwg;gLj;jg;gl Ntz;Lk;.
mq;fPfupf;fg;gl;l epu;thfj ; jpl;lj;jpy;
“ fPonkh`y;yh Nkyf;fl;rp" tf;gpd ; epu;thfj;jpy;
gpujpepjpiaj ; Nju;T nra;Ak ; cupik ngw;w xU
gpupthf Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. vdNt. Nkyf;fl;rp
gpujpepjpiaj ; Nju;T nra;Ak ; cupikahdJ
mq;fPfupf;fg;gl;l jpl;lj;jpy; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;s
rk;ge;jg;gl;l Nkyf;fl;rp gpuptpypUe;Nj ngwg;gl
Ntz;Lk;.
NkYk;> jw;NghJ eilKiwapy ; cs;s
mq;fPfupf;fg;gl;l epu;thfj; jpl;lj;jpy;> “ filaey;Y}
u ; nyg;ig rhfpg ; K];ypk; [khj; kfh[d rig"
jdpahf xU gpujpepjpiaj; Nju;T nra;Ak; mjpfhuk;
ngw;w mikg;ghf Fwpg;gplg;gltpy;iy. vdNt>
Nkw;gb mikg;gpd; %yk; Nkw;nfhs;sg;gl;l epakdk;
my;yJ Nju;it kl;Lk ; mbg;gilahff; nfhz;L
Nkyf;fl;rp gpujpepjpj;Jtj;ij epu;zapf;f ,ayhJ.
,e;epiyapy;> Nkw;gb filaey;Y}u; nyg;ig
rhfpg ; K];ypk; [khj; kfh[d rgh vd;w ngau;
tf;gpd; epu;thfj; jpl;lj;jpy; (igyh) ve;j ,lj;jpYk;
__________
Page 4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )

WP(MD) No. 29648 of 2026
Fwpg;gplg;glhj fhuzj;jhy; mtuJ Nfhupf;ifapid
epuhfupg;gNj rupahdJ vd thupak; fUJfpwJ.
[dhg;. S.A. cJkhd ; KifjPd ; vd;gtiu
jq;fspd; fl;rpapd; rhu;ghd gpujpepjp vd;W epakpj;J
kD nra;j filaey;Y}u; nyg;ig rhfpg; K];ypk;
[khj ; kfh[d rgh vd;w [khj ; mikg;gpw;Fk;>
Nkw;gb gs;spthry ; epu;thfj;jpw;Fk;> tf;gpd;
epu;thfj ; jpl;lj;jpd;gb (igyh) vt;tpj
njhlu;Gk ; ,y;iy. MfNt filaey;Y}u ; nyg;ig
rh`pg; K];ypk; [khmj; kfh[d; rghtpd; rhu;ghf
[dhg;. S.A. cJkhd ; KifjPd ; vd;gtiu jq;fsJ
gpujpepjpahf njuptpj;J Nkw;gb tf;G epWtdj;jpw;F
cWg;gpduhf epakpf;f NfhUk; kD Vwg;GilaJ
my;y vd thupak; fUjp mjid epuhfupf;fpwJ. ”
7. While the petitioner may be correct in stating that there is no
specific reference to the documents relied upon by the petitioner, I find that
the petitioner's nomination was rejected primarily on the basis of the Scheme
framed in respect of the pallivaasal. The Waqf Board concluded that the
nomination made by the Kadayanallur Lebbai Sahib Muslim Jamatha
Mahajanasaba Melakatchi is not in consonance with the Scheme. In these
circumstances, it cannot be said that there is a flaw in the decision-making
process or that principles of natural justice were violated. The Waqf Act,
1995 provides for a statutory remedy by way of an appeal to the Waqf
Tribunal. Consequently, by declining to interfere in judicial review, it is left
__________
Page 5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )

WP(MD) No. 29648 of 2026
open to the petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy. All contentions are
left open to the rival parties.
8. This Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
15-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
JEN
To
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Waqf Board,
Chennai.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, Chennai.
3. The Superintendent of Waqf,
Durga Building,
No.54, S.N.High Road,
Sripuram, Tenkasi.
__________
Page 6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )

WP(MD) No. 29648 of 2026
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
JEN
WP(MD) No. 29648 of 2026
15-10-2026
__________
Page 7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:22:15 pm )