Wakf Board Lacks Inherent Review Power; Statutory Challenge Lies Exclusively Before the Wakf Tribunal

The Eight Petitioners, claiming to be persons interested in the Wakf institution "Anjuman-E-Islam" (Respondent No. 4), challenged the approval of a scheme governing its administration settled by the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf (Respondent No. 1)

The Petitioners filed a review petition before the Board on May 6, 2026, seeking reconsideration of the scheme

While the review was pending, the Board initiated steps to constitute a Managing Committee under the approved scheme

The Petitioners approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Board to dispose of the review petition before finalizing the committee

Respondents raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Wakf Act, 1995 provides no power of review and that the Petitioners must approach the Wakf Tribunal

1. Whether a review petition is maintainable before the State Wakf Board against a scheme framed or approved under the Wakf Act, 1995.

2. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the Board to decide a review petition in the absence of a statutory power of review.

Section 32(2)(d) empowers the Board to settle schemes of management, while Section 32(3) provides a specific statutory remedy for "any person interested" to challenge such schemes before the Wakf Tribunal

Section 69 governs the framing of schemes and Section 69(3) provides a right of appeal to the Tribunal specifically against orders affecting mutawallis or management structures

The power of review is not an inherent power and must be expressly conferred by statute

The Court observed that the Wakf Act, 1995 creates a comprehensive and bifurcated statutory mechanism for disputes: Section 32(3) is "stakeholder-centric," allowing any interested person to challenge a scheme, while Section 69(3) is "order-centric," primarily protecting the rights of mutawallis

The Court reasoned that the Legislature consciously entrusted the adjudication of such disputes to the Wakf Tribunal, not the Board

Upon examining the Act, the Court found no provision—express or implied—conferring a power of review upon the Board

Consequently, the Court determined that permitting a review would rewrite the legislative scheme and render the statutory remedies before the Tribunal redundant

Since there is no statutory duty to entertain a review, the Board cannot be compelled via mandamus to decide a non-maintainable proceeding

The Court dismissed the writ petition and refused to issue the mandamus. However, liberty was reserved for the Petitioners to avail themselves of the efficacious alternative statutory remedies before the Wakf Tribunal under Section 32(3) or Section 69(3), as applicable. All contentions on the merits of the scheme were left open.