Madras High Court
M.S.Mohammed Ali Misbahi vs The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board on 8 August, 2025
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P.(MD).No.21775 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P(MD) No.21775 of 2025
and
W.M.P(MD) No.16857 and 16860 of 2025
M.S.Mohammed Ali Misbahi
S/o.Mohammed Syed,
Muthawalli, Mohaideen Andavar Alias Takva Pallivasal,
Pallivasal Street, Pasuapathi Kovil,
Papanasam Taluk, Thanjavur – 614 206.
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board,
Rep by its Chief Executive Officer,
No.1 Jaffar Syrang Street,
Vallal Seethakathi Nagar,
Chennai 1.
2.The Chief Executive Officer,
Tamil Nadu Wakf Board,
No.1 Jaffar Syrang Street,
Vallal Seethakathi Nagar,
Chennai 1.
3.The Chief Administrative Officer,
Tamil Nadu Wakf Board,
No.1 Jaffar Syrang Street,
Vallal Seethakathi Nagar,
Chennai 1.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 05:29:32 pm )
W.P.(MD).No.21775 of 2025
4.The Superintendent of Wakf,
Tamil Nadu Wakf Board,
Thanjavur Circle,
Thanjavur Wakf Zonal Office,
Ali Khutba Thaikkal Alias Edgah
Masjid, Railway Colony,
Thanjavur 61. ...Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 4th
respondent dated 15.07.2025 ending with Na.Reg No.384/Tanjore/Vaka/2025
and quash the same.
For Petitioner : M/s.Kowser Nissar.I
For Respondents : Mr.K.K.Senthil
Standing Counsel
ORDER
This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned communication issued by the fourth respondent, dated 15.07.2025, whereby a copy of the draft scheme framed by the Waqf Board was circulated, inviting objections from 15.07.2025 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 05:29:32 pm ) W.P.(MD).No.21775 of 2025 to 30.07.2025.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed only on 05.08.2025, i.e., after the expiry of the stipulated period on 30.07.2025. The challenge to the impugned communication, whereby the draft scheme framed by the first respondent/Waqf Board was circulated, is primarily based on the recent decision of this Court reported in 2025 (2) LW 927 (Mohamed Yusuf and others v. The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board and others), wherein, in the concluding portion of the judgment, this Court has issued certain directions in paragraph Nos.10.1 to 10.5, which read as under:
“10. From a reading of Section 69 of the Act, in particular, sub-section (1) to Section 69 of the Act, it appears that before a scheme is framed thereunder the following requirements must be complied with. I shall proceed to deal with the same:
a) Satisfaction of the Board:
10.1. The Board must be “satisfied” of the need to frame a Scheme for the proper administration of the Waqf, it may then proceed to frame a Scheme in the manner provided under Section 69 of the Act. The above satisfaction must be arrived at by the Board “after an enquiry” on its own motion or on an application of not less than 5 persons interested in any Waqf to frame a Scheme.3/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 05:29:32 pm ) W.P.(MD).No.21775 of 2025 10.2. The expression “satisfied” would mean making up its mind (or) the authority coming to a conclusion on the evidence available. The expression “satisfied” must mean reasonably satisfied and excludes arbitrariness or rationality. Satisfaction must be honest, careful, rational and based on material and not on conjunctures and surmises. To understand the scope of the expression “satisfied” employed in Section 69 of the Act, it may be relevant to refer to the following judgments:
i) T.P. Senkumar v. Union of India, reported in (2017) 6 SCC 801:
“93. The learned counsel for the State Government is right in submitting that it is only a prima facie satisfaction that is to be arrived at by the State Government that the general public is dissatisfied with the efficiency of the police so as to enable a shifting out of the State Police Chief. However, that prima facie satisfaction must be based on some cogent and rational material. Nothing has been placed before us in this regard except the view that there was dissatisfaction among the general public on the efficiency of the police. Mere repetition of the provisions of Section 97(2)(e) of the Act is not sufficient — there must be some material on record (other than a newspaper report) but unfortunately nothing has been pointed out to us during the course of submissions. It is not enough to merely contend that the State Government was subjectively satisfied that the appellant ought to be transferred out as the State Police Chief.
ii) Ratan Roy v. State of Bihar, 1950 SCC OnLine Pat 20 Pg 443:
“But it must also be remembered at the same time that where ever a legislation uses the word “satisfied”, it must mean reasonably satisfied. I again quote for my authority the decision of the House of 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 05:29:32 pm ) W.P.(MD).No.21775 of 2025 Lords in Liversidge v. Anderson. In that case Lord Wright pointed out; “satisfied” must mean “reasonably satisfied”, it cannot import an arbitrary or irrational state of being satisfied”.
iii) Chandreshwari Prasad NarainDeo v. State of Bihar, reported in 1955 SCC OnLine Pat 62 :
“31. The contention of learned Government Pleader was that the satisfaction of the Collector under S. 4(h) was in the nature of a subjective satisfaction and, therefore, could not be questioned by a Superior Court. I am unable to agree. I think the word “satisfied” in S. 4(h) must be construed to mean “reasonably satisfied”, and, therefore, the finding of the Collector under S. 4(h) cannot be a subjective or arbitrary finding but must be based upon adequate material. I also think that the satisfaction of the Collector under S. 4(h) is not a capricious satisfaction but must be capable of being tested in an objective manner.” (emphasis supplied) 10.3. Therefore, even before initiating any proceedings for framing of Scheme, the Board is mandated, to record satisfaction “after an enquiry”, that it is necessary for the proper administration of the Waqf that a scheme should be framed. Recording of satisfaction is a condition precedent or sine qua non before the Board proceeds to frame a Scheme or exercise the power to frame a Scheme for the Waqf. In the present case, admittedly the Board has neither held any enquiry nor recorded satisfaction of the need to frame a scheme for the proper administration of the Waqf.
10.4. Importantly, despite a specific challenge having been made by the petitioner that there was no satisfaction recorded by the Board before proceeding to frame the impugned scheme. The Respondent 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 05:29:32 pm ) W.P.(MD).No.21775 of 2025 has not let in any material/ evidence to show that there was a formation of opinion or in other words, the Board was satisfied of the need to frame a Scheme for the proper administration of the Waqf.
The above satisfaction is a condition precedent / sine qua non for exercise of power, absence of which would render the entire proceedings ultra vires Section 69 of the Act. Thus, failure to record the satisfaction of the Board to frame scheme in terms of section 69 of the Act, would vitiate the entire proceedings.
b. Absence of enquiry:
The satisfaction by the Board of the need to frame a scheme must be arrived at “after making an enquiry”, however no such enquiry was made. The written submissions nor the counter of the Respondent even speak about conduct of an enquiry, on the basis of which the Board was satisfied of the need to frame a Scheme for the administration of the Waqf. It appears that enquiry leading to satisfaction of the need to frame a Scheme by the Board is a condition precedent/ jurisdictional fact, for the Board to proceed to exercise its power under Section 69 of the Act. It is relevant to note that the above requirement of an enquiry preceding such formation of satisfaction has been specifically incorporated by the Waqf Amendment Act of 2013 (Act 27 of 2013), prior to which, the requirement was merely to be satisfied that is necessary and expedient to frame a Scheme. Therefore, the holding of an enquiry before formation of opinion, that a scheme is to be framed for the proper administration of the Wakf is mandatory and the non-
compliance of the same would render the entire exercise void. I say so, for any attempt at dispensing with enquiry (or) treating it as directory, would result in rendering the legislative exercise of mandating the Board to arrive at a satisfaction of the need to frame a 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 05:29:32 pm ) W.P.(MD).No.21775 of 2025 scheme for proper administration of the Wakf after an enquiry a wasteful legislative exercise. It is trite that any legislative exercise has a purpose and one ought not to impute superfluity (or) render the legislative exercise otiose. It may be relevant to refer to the following judgments to appreciate the relevance and importance of existence of jurisdictional facts and application of mind as to its existence by the authority concerned before assuming jurisdiction. It is relevant to extract the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar v. Union of India reported in (2007) 1 SCC 732, which reads as under:
“74. A “jurisdictional fact” is a fact which must exist before a court, tribunal or an authority assumes jurisdiction over a particular matter. A jurisdictional fact is one on existence or non~existence of which depends jurisdiction of a court, a tribunal or an authority. It is the fact upon which an administrative agency-s power to act depends. If the jurisdictional fact does not exist, the court, authority or officer cannot act. If a court or authority wrongly assumes the existence of such fact, the order can be questioned by a writ of certiorari. The underlying principle is that by erroneously assuming existence of such jurisdictional fact, no authority can confer upon itself jurisdiction which it otherwise does not possess.
75. In Halsbury's Laws of England, it has been stated:
“Where the jurisdiction of a tribunal is dependent on the existence of a particular state of affairs, that state of affairs may be described as preliminary to, or collateral to the merits of, the issue. If, at the inception of an inquiry by an inferior tribunal, a challenge is made to its jurisdiction, the tribunal has to make up its mind whether to act or 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 05:29:32 pm ) W.P.(MD).No.21775 of 2025 not and can give a ruling on the preliminary or collateral issue; but that ruling is not conclusive”.
76. The existence of jurisdictional fact is thus sine qua non or condition precedent for the exercise of power by a court of limited jurisdiction.” (emphasis supplied) 10.5. Keeping in view the law laid down as to the relevance of “jurisdictional fact”, in mind, and the absence of enquiry leading to the satisfaction of the Board to frame a Scheme for the proper administration of the Waqf, which this Court finds is a Jurisdictional fact, absent in the present case, the impugned Scheme is without Jurisdiction.
4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that several complaints had been received, and therefore, a decision was taken to frame a draft scheme after summoning the petitioner as well as the Secretary of the petitioner’s Waqf. However, they are stated to have refused to appear.
5. It is submitted that ultimately, notice was also transmitted to the Secretary of the Waqf, namely Mohaideen Andavar @ Takva Pallivasal, through WhatsApp. Since there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, the draft scheme was framed, and thereafter, suggestions were called for.8/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 05:29:32 pm ) W.P.(MD).No.21775 of 2025
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents further submits that the draft scheme has been circulated and objections have been received.
However, till date, the draft scheme has not been finalised. Further, a resolution to this effect had been passed on 20.11.2024, the text of which has been furnished during the course of hearing. The relevant portion of the resolution passed on 20.11.2024 is extracted below:
9/12https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 05:29:32 pm ) W.P.(MD).No.21775 of 2025
7. Considering the above, this Court is inclined to dispose the present petition by permitting the petitioner to file his objections to the draft scheme framed by the Waqf Board.
8. The petitioner shall submit his objections, if any, within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the scheme shall be finalised strictly in accordance with Section 69 of the Waqf Act, 1995.
10/12https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 05:29:32 pm ) W.P.(MD).No.21775 of 2025
9. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
08.08.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Indu
To
1.The Regional Passport Officer,
Tiruchirappalli, New Municipal Complex,
Thillai Nagar,
7th Cross, Tiruchirappalli 620 018.
Tamil Nadu.
2.The Superintendent Enquiry Officer,
Regional Passport Office,
2nd Floor, Corporation Complex Building,
7th Cross, West Thillai Nagar,
Trichy, Tamil Nadu.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Thiruchitrambalam Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
11/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 05:29:32 pm )
W.P.(MD).No.21775 of 2025
C.SARAVANAN, J.
Indu
W.P(MD) No.21775 of 2025
08.08.2025
12/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 05:29:32 pm )