Madras High Court
Islamiya Uravin Murai Trust Board vs Abdul Nazar ... 1St on 5 August, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.A(MD)No.2279 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A(MD)No.2279 of 2025
and
C.M.P(MD)No.12815 of 2025
Islamiya Uravin Murai Trust Board,
Represented by its President,
Veerasholam Village,
Thiruchuli Taluk,
Virudhunagar District. ... Appellant /
4th Respondent
Vs.
1.Abdul Nazar ... 1st Respondent /
Writ Petitioner
2.The Chairman,
O/o.Tamilnadu Wakf Board,
No.1, Jaffer Surang Street,
Vallal Seethakathi Nagar,
Chennai.
3.The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board,
Represented by its
Chief Executive Officer,
No.1, Jaffer Surang Street,
Vallal Seethakathi Nagar,
Chennai.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2025 07:37:45 pm )
W.A(MD)No.2279 of 2025
4.The Superintendent of Wakf,
O/o.The Superintendent of Wakf,
Pasipattarai Masjid,
Velipattinam Post,
Ramanathapuram District – 623 504. ... Respondents 2 to 4/
Respondents 1 to 3
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the
interim order dated 31.07.2025 made in W.P(MD)No.20980 of 2025 on the file
of this Court and allow the Writ Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.B.Anandan
For Respondents : Mr.S.M.Jinnah for R.1
Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed
for R.2 to R.4
JUDGMENT
(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) Heard both sides.
2.The case on hand pertains to the conduct of election of the Trust Board of the petition mentioned Wakf. As per the proforma, the Rule of Succession to the office of Muthavalli is as follows:
“The office of the Muthavalli is occupied by the president elected by adult male muslims who pay tax (Thalaikattuvari) to the trust besides the president Vice President 12 trustees and 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2025 07:37:45 pm ) W.A(MD)No.2279 of 2025 religious panchayadars are also elected annually as per established custom.”
3.According to the writ petitioner, election should be conducted in terms of the aforesaid clause in the proforma and that there should be voting. Another faction took the stand that since a new scheme of administration has been framed, the members of the Board should be selected by show of hands. We need not go into this controversy for the present. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board represented by the Chief Executive Officer vide proceedings dated 25.06.2025 directed the Wakf Superintendent, Ramanathapuram to constitute a new Trust Board as per the bylaws. The operative portion of the said proceedings is as follows:
“tpUJefh; khtl;lk;> jpUr;RHp tl;lk;> tPunrhHd; fpuhkk>; ,];yhkpa cwtpd; Kiw ou];l; nghh;L tf;gpd; eph;thfj; jpl;lj;jpd;go g[jpa eph;thff;FG njh;t[ bra;J thhpaj;jpw;F rkh;gpf;FkhW ,uhkehjg[uk; tf;g[ fz;fhzpg;ghsUf;F cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.”
4.Assailing the said proceedings as well as the consequential notification dated 18.07.2025 issued by the Wakf Superintendent, W.P(MD)No.20980 of 2025 came to be filed. The learned single Judge passed the following interim order on 31.07.2025. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the said order read as follows:
“2. Since the election has already been called for the third respondent vide notice dated 18.07.2025 as per the Bylaw No.4.1, 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2025 07:37:45 pm ) W.A(MD)No.2279 of 2025 no interim order can be granted to stall the same. However, the results of the elections shall be announced subject to further order in this writ petition.
3.Issue notice to the fourth respondent returnable by 14.08.2025. Private notice is also permitted.
4.Post on 14.08.2025 along with W.P(MD)No.19295 of 2025.” Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Appeal has been filed by the Trust Board.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated all the contentions set out in the grounds of appeal and called upon this Court to interfere in the matter.
6.Per contra, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner raised two objections. His first objection is that this Writ Appeal itself is not maintainable as it is directed against an interim order. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.SR.No.50828 of 2021(R.Rukmangathan Vs TANGEDCO & Others). He also pointed out that the election was not conducted in consonance with the proforma. According to him, the appellant herein ought to have moved the learned single Judge and could not have rushed to the Division Bench straightaway.4/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2025 07:37:45 pm ) W.A(MD)No.2279 of 2025
7.The objections raised by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner are sound and persuasive. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are unable to agree. It is to be noted that the bylaws have been subsequently amended and a new scheme of association has also been approved by the Board and it has also been gazetted. In respect of the very same subject matter, the appellant Board had filed W.P(MD)No.16260 of 2025 for directing the Wakf Board to grant permission for constituting a new administrative committee as per the existing bylaw published in the Tamil Nadu official gazette dated 18.01.2023. The writ petition was disposed of by the lordship Mr.Justice C.Saravanan vide order dated 18.06.2025 in the following terms:
“7. It is in its background, the report of the Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf, which has been placed before the Wakf. Hence, a decision has to be taken based on the existing by-laws. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the respondents to constitute the Administrative Committee, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the existing by-laws within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ”
8.One Shahul Hameed claiming to be one of the Jamathdars filed W.A(MD)No.No.2206 of 2025 questioning the said order. We had held that the learned single Judge was right in issuing the direction as per the existing 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2025 07:37:45 pm ) W.A(MD)No.2279 of 2025 bylaws. We, however, made it clear that since the new scheme had been put to challenge before the Wakf Tribunal in A.A.No.3 of 2023, any selection made pursuant to the order of the learned single Judge would abide by the outcome of the appeal before the Tribunal. The learned single Judge had already directed holding of selection / election; the selection / election had also been conducted.
The order of the learned single Judge had also been confirmed by this Bench. In these circumstances, the question of restraining the declaration of results may not really arise.
9.Secondly, if the writ petitioner felt aggrieved by the order of the Wakf Board, his remedy lies before the Wakf Tribunal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of AP Vs AP Wakf Board (2022) 20 SCC 383 held that alternative remedy is not a bar to writ jurisdiction where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice or where the order or proceedings impugned are wholly without jurisdiction or where the vires of the act is challenged. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is silent as to why the alternative remedy is being bypassed.
6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2025 07:37:45 pm ) W.A(MD)No.2279 of 2025
10.More than anything else, it is well settled that once the election process has been set in motion, it cannot be stalled by the Courts. In R.Karuppan Vs P.K.Rajagopal 2001 (3) CTC 486, a learned Judge of this Court held that the principle that Courts cannot stall an election process will be applicable only to elections for parliament and legislatures and that the said principle cannot be extended to associations registered under the Societies Registration Act. The learned Judge took the view that unless there is any provision excluding the jurisdiction of Courts, the argument that injunction cannot be granted in respect of an election process is not acceptable. This decision was followed in quite a few subsequent decisions of this Court (2010) 2 MWN (Civil) 96 (Food Corporation of India Vs J.Shanmugam), 2015 (5) CTC 45 (Tim Boyd Vs Kesiraju Krishna Phani) and (2013) 2 MLJ 159 (K.Gnanaprakasam Vs The Food Corporation of India). But the Hon'ble First Bench in the decision reported in 2014 (2) LW 838 (Medical Council of India vs. Registrar/Returning Officer) held that it is well settled that once the election process commenced, the same cannot be stayed by the Courts. The Hon'ble First Bench followed the decisions of the Apex Court reported in (2011) 13 SCC 774 (Supreme Court Bar Association vs. B.D.Kaushik) and (2001) 8 SCC 509, (Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Another v. State of Maharashtra). 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2025 07:37:45 pm ) W.A(MD)No.2279 of 2025 The Hon'ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court also, in the decision reported in ILR (2013) 5 Del 3539 (Yachting Association of India v. Boardsailing Association of India), noted that the principles of law relating to election of candidates under the Representation of People Act, 1951 have been extended to elections in general also. In the case of Shri Sant Sadguru, (2001) 8 SCC 509, the Supreme Court was considering a case of elections to the Managing Committee of a society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. B.D.Kaushik case concerned not an election to a legislature or a local body but only to a Bar association. We are of the view that the principle that after the commencement of the election process, Courts should not stall the same applies to Wakf elections also. The election process must be allowed to proceed to its logical conclusion. The outcome can always be challenged in the manner known to law. In the case on hand, the election had already been conducted. Declaration of results alone has been restrained. This also amounts to stalling the process of election.
11.In this view of the matter, we hold that this Writ Appeal is maintainable. For the reasons mentioned above, the order of the learned single Judge is set aside.
8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2025 07:37:45 pm ) W.A(MD)No.2279 of 2025
12.This Writ Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[G.R.S., J.] [K.R.S., J.]
05.08.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
MGA
Note: Issue order copy on 05.08.2025.
To
1.The Chairman,
O/o.Tamilnadu Wakf Board,
No.1, Jaffer Surang Street,
Vallal Seethakathi Nagar,
Chennai.
2.The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board,
Represented by its
Chief Executive Officer,
No.1, Jaffer Surang Street,
Vallal Seethakathi Nagar,
Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Wakf,
O/o.The Superintendent of Wakf,
Pasipattarai Masjid,
Velipattinam Post,
Ramanathapuram District – 623 504.
9/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2025 07:37:45 pm )
W.A(MD)No.2279 of 2025
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J
and
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
MGA
W.A(MD)No.2279 of 2025
05.08.2025
10/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2025 07:37:45 pm )