Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Masjid Management for Employment Disputes Lacking Public Law Element

The appellant had been performing duties at Idgaah Masjid, Bhopal, for several years. Vide order dated 15.11.2012, he was directed to vacate the quarter occupied by him within the Masjid premises and to hand over the lock and key to the Office of Auqaf-E-Amma.

Subsequently, owing to his conduct, an order dated 21.05.2014 was passed removing him from the service of Muvzin (Muezzin) of the said Masjid.

The appellant challenged this action through W.P. No. 14348/2014; however, the learned Single Judge, by order dated 16.06.2026, dismissed the petition on the ground of maintainability, holding that no public element was involved since the petitioner was an employee of the Masjid and therefore no public law remedy was available to him.

The respondents contended that although the management committee may have been appointed by the Waqf Board, the appellant was an employee of the Masjid, removed in 2014, and that the appropriate remedy lay before the Waqf Tribunal under Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995.

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable by an employee of a Masjid challenging his removal from service, on the footing that the respondents fall within the definition of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution, thereby involving a public law element?

2. Whether the appropriate remedy for the appellant, being aggrieved by his removal and eviction from the quarter, lies before the Waqf Tribunal under Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995?

Article 226 read with Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995, which empowers the constitution of Tribunals for the determination of any dispute, question or matter relating to a waqf or waqf property, and under sub-section (2) entitles any mutawalli, person interested in a waqf, or any person aggrieved by an order under the Act to seek adjudication before the Tribunal.

Parameters for identifying a public law element warranting Article 226 intervention as established in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, (1981) 1 SCC 722; Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 449; Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111.

The Court applied the framework of the aforesaid precedents and found that the appellant was an employee of the Masjid (respondent nos. 2 and 3), and not of the Waqf Board; consequently, he could not invoke the public law remedy under Article 226, as the employment relationship lacked the requisite public law element regardless of the management committee's appointment under Section 18 of the Act.

The Court observed that the appellant's grievance — removal from the post of Muvzin and the direction to vacate the allotted quarter — constituted a dispute against respondent nos. 2 and 3 which squarely fell within the adjudicatory domain of the Waqf Tribunal under Section 83 of the Act of 1995, the provision being extracted in full to demonstrate that an efficacious alternative statutory remedy was available to persons aggrieved by orders relating to a waqf.

The Court concluded that the remedy for the alleged action/inaction of the respondents "lies somewhere else, not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India".

The writ appeal was dismissed as devoid of merits, with the liberty granted to the appellant to pursue his grievance before the Waqf Tribunal under Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995.