Madras HC Declines To Block Waqf Board’s Management Of Chennai Mosque While Tribunal Weighs Takeover Challenge

The petitioner, claiming to be President of the Managing Committee of Edgah Charities and Mosque, Angappan Street, Chennai, asserted that the Wakf was governed by a scheme framed by the High Court in C.S. No. 159 of 1931, under which a seven-member committee administered it.

In 2023, the Wakf Board’s Chief Executive Officer issued a show-cause notice proposing action under Section 64 of the Wakf Act, 1995.

The Board later resolved to take over the Wakf under direct management, and a Gazette notification recording that decision was published on 23 February 2024.

The Committee Secretary challenged the resolution before the Wakf Tribunal in O.A. No. 42 of 2024, which remained pending.

The petitioner then sought a writ restraining the respondents from appointing or removing Mutawallis, assuming direct management, or amending or modifying the scheme.

Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995 permits a Mutawalli, a person interested in a Wakf, or another aggrieved person to approach the Wakf Tribunal; Section 83(5) vests the Tribunal with civil-court powers.

Under Section 65(2), the State Government may examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of a notification issued by the Board under Section 65(1).

Section 66 provides for the State Government’s exercise of powers in consultation with the Board.

The Court stated that, while a judicial scheme remains in force, direct control cannot be assumed unless the State Government specifically modifies the scheme under Section 66.

The Tribunal was already considering the governing scheme, the Board’s jurisdiction, the resolution and notification, and the asserted expiry of the direct-management period.

Those matters could therefore be raised and determined in the pending original application, for which the Act provides a forum with civil-court powers.

Although the Court stated the legal principle concerning the continuing scheme and Section 66, it did not decide the merits of the petitioner’s claims; it considered the pending Tribunal proceeding a reason not to grant the requested blanket writ relief.

It expressed no opinion on the facts or merits and left the Tribunal to decide the issues independently after hearing the petitioner and affected parties.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.