IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.11.2007
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN
C.R.P. (NPD) No.2533 of 2007
and
M.P. No. 1 & 2 of 2007
1. K.M.Basheer
2. LEM.Mohamed Ali ..Petitioners
Versus
1. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board
Rep by its Chairperson
No.7/4
9th Cross Street
Indira Nagar
Adayar
Chennai 20.
2. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board
No.7/4
9th Cross Street
Indira Nagar
Adayar
Chennai 20.
3. The Superintendent of Wakfs
Tamil Nadu Wakf Board
North Zone
No.822
Anna Salai
"Meca Masjid Complex"
Chennai 20.
4. S.M.N.Mohamed Yusuf
5. Mahboob Sardar
6. K.M.M.Umar
7. N.Sahul Hameed
8. Mohamed Idrees ..Respondents
Prayer: This revision petition has been preferred under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order
dated 19.4.2007 made in O.A.No.11/2005 on the file of The
Tamil Nadu Wakf Appellate Tribunal ( I Assistant Judge,
City Civil Court) at Chennai.
For Petitioners : Mr.B.Kumar, Senior Counsel for Mr.J.Nandagopal
For Respondents : Mr.Siraj (for R1 to R3)
Mr.J.Jaseem Mohamed (for R5 to R8)
ORDER
The Wakf Board in its order dated 28.9.2005 has taken
over the management of the Wakf under question for a period
of six months from 28.9.2005 from the President and other
Office bearers and the secretary, who was a managing trustee
as per the trust deed. An application has been preferred
against the said order of the Wakf Board before the
appellate Authority/Tribunal (I Assistant Judge, City Civil
Court, Chennai) in O.A.No.11 of 2005. The learned appellate
Authority/Tribunal had confirmed the order passed by the
Wakf Board, which has necessitated this revision.
2.The learned Senior Counsel Mr.Kumar appearing of the
revision petitioners would challenge the impugned order of
the Wakf Board dated 28.9.2005 on the ground that only under
two circumstances, the order under Section 65 of the Wakf
Act can be passed and those two circumstances are (1) If
suitable person is not available to be appointed as
Muthavali (2) If the appointment of the Muthavali was
prejudicial to the interest of the Wakf, and that there is
absolutely no material on record to show that the above said
two requirements under Section 65 of the Act have been
complied with warranting an order under Section 65 of the
Act. The learned Senior Counsel would also point out that
the said order was passed mainly on the ground of allegation
and counter allegation against the nine Muthavalies. It has
further been observed in the impugned order that the Wakf in
question was not properly maintained by the trustees. Only
on that ground the management of the Wakf was taken away by
the Wakf Board under the impugned order for six months. Now
it is fairly admitted by the learned Senior Counsel that six
months period stipulated under the impugned order has
already been expired by the end of March-2006 and nothing
survives in this revision.
3.The learned counsel for the Wakf Board Mr.Sirajudeen
would contend that the paramount importance is the welfare
of the Wakf and that some arrangements shall be made by this
Court for the proper functioning of the Wakf. If the Wakf
Board has got any grievance against the running of the Wakf,
the remedy open to them is to follow the provisions
contemplated under Section 64 to 67 of the Wakf Act.
4.At this juncture the learned counsel appearing for
the respondents 4 to 8 would focus the attention of this
Court to the order passed in WP.No.40100 of 2005 &
WPMP.No.42995 of 2005 that the petitioner – K.M.Basheer, who
had challenged the impugned order before this Court, was
directed to approach the Tribunal. The said order was also
confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA.No.341
of 2006 dated 17.3.2006. But the Division Bench had set
aside the imposition of costs on the petitioner by the
learned Single Judge. Now, as correctly represented by the
learned Senior Counsel, there is nothing survives in this
Civil Revision Petition since the impugned order of the Wakf
Board itself has expired and the same is not in force as on
today.
5.The learned counsel for the Wakf Board represents
that Wakf Board may be given liberty to take appropriate
action against the Wakf. Under the provisions of Wakf Act,
the Wakf Board has been empowered with necessary power and
the Wakf Board can take appropriate action as contemplated
under the provisions of Wakf Act within four months from
today, if the mismanagement of the Wakf by the Managing
trustee found continued.
6.It is further represented on behalf of the revision
petitioners that even after the expiry of the period
stipulated under the impugned order, the Wakf Board has not
handed over the management to the trustees. If it is so,
the Wakf Board has to entrust the management to the
President, who in turn will hand over the same to the
Managing Trustee. The learned counsel for the Wakf Board
requests a weeks time to hand over the management. His
request is acceded.
With the above observation, this civil Revision
Petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.
ssv
To
The I Assistant Judge
City Civil Court
Chennai.