Waqf Board Can't Appoint Ad-Hoc Panel To Manage Waqf Institution By Bypassing Statutory Rules: Karnataka High Court
The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court quashed an Office Memorandum issued by the State Board of Auqaf constituting an ad-hoc committee for eleven months to manage and supervise a waqf institution, holding that the Board bypassed the statutory mechanism under the Karnataka Wakf Rules, 2017.Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum was hearing a plea moved by the President and Secretary of the...
The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court quashed an Office Memorandum issued by the State Board of Auqaf constituting an ad-hoc committee for eleven months to manage and supervise a waqf institution, holding that the Board bypassed the statutory mechanism under the Karnataka Wakf Rules, 2017.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum was hearing a plea moved by the President and Secretary of the Bazme Tohid Tanzeem Committee of Mudalagi— stated to be a religious institution— challenging the board's decision to constitute an ad-hoc panel to manage the institution without following the procedure under the 2017 Rules.
The Court held that it can exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction in Wakf matters when they concern the violation of a mandatory statutory provision in breach of natural justice principles, or a disregard of judicial directions.
“Where the Rules framed under the Act prescribe the manner in which the succeeding managing committee has to be constituted and specifically provide for the consequence of failure to constitute such committee, the Board cannot bypass that mechanism by resorting to an ad-hoc arrangement,” Justice Magadum observed.
Referring to Rule 54 (Appointment of Muthawallies or Managing Committees) of the 2017 Rules, the Court said, “The Rule does not confer an unfettered discretion upon the Board to devise any alternative arrangement of its choice upon expiry of the tenure of the existing committee. It specifically identifies the authority who is to assume management and supervision in the interregnum and further casts a duty upon that authority to secure constitution of the succeeding committee.”
After the tenure of the earlier committee came to an end on June 12, 2023, the Court found that the Board failed to comply with the Rules and repeatedly appointed an administrator and subsequently an ad-hoc committee, which was constituted as a “special case” on the recommendation of the Wakf minister.
The Court further noted that an “interim arrangement” must not defeat the mechanism for constituting a regular management committee.
“The existence of an ad-hoc committee cannot be permitted to become a substitute for the statutory scheme contemplated under the Rules. An interim arrangement, if permissible in law, must remain genuinely interim and cannot be employed to defeat the prescribed mechanism for constitution of the regular managing committee,” the Court said.
“The impugned Official Memorandum, however, proceeds to constitute an ad-hoc committee without demonstrating compliance with the procedure which this Court had directed the Board to undertake. The Court is therefore constrained to hold that the impugned order is not a mere administrative arrangement made to facilitate the day-to-day functioning of the Wakf institution. It has the effect of displacing the statutory mechanism under Rule 54 and creating an alternative management structure for a substantial period of eleven months,” Justice Magadum held.
Extraordinary jurisdiction
The Court rejected the respondents' argument that the writ petition was not maintainable. Relying on the Apex Court ruling in Board of Wakf, West Bengal & another vs. Anis Fatma Begum & another, the respondents submitted that due to the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, the petitioners must approach the Wakf Tribunal in the first instance instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
The High Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgement in State of Andhra Pradesh (now State of Telangana) vs. A.P. State Waqf Board and drew a distinction between the writ jurisdiction and Wakf tribunal jurisdictions.
“This distinction is crucial. Anis Fatima Begum (supra) recognises the desirability of approaching the specialised Tribunal where the dispute falls within the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the Wakf Act. State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. State Waqf Board (supra), however, makes it equally clear that such principle does not operate as an absolute embargo where the grievance is directed against the legality of the action of the Board itself and where the matter does not require adjudication of disputed questions of title or other questions which the statute specifically entrusts to the Tribunal,” the Court observed.
The High Court noted that the present petition had challenged the Board's non-compliance with statutory mechanism and its decision to appoint an administrator and later an ad-hoc committee despite earlier High Court orders quashing the appointment of an administrator and directing it to undertake the exercise of constituting a committee.
“The existence of an alternative remedy is undoubtedly a relevant consideration, however, where the action complained of is alleged to be without jurisdiction, in violation of a mandatory statutory provision, in breach of principles of natural justice or in disregard of binding judicial directions, the High Court is entitled to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. In the present case, the impugned action is alleged to suffer from precisely such infirmity,” the Court held.
Setting aside the impugned official memorandum constituting the 11-member ad-hoc committee, the Court directed the District Waqf Officer to take charge of the management and supervision of the Wakf institution.
CASE: BAZME TOHID TANZEEM & ANOTHER VS. KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQAF & OTHERS,
WRIT PETITION NO. 101523 OF 2026 (GM-WAKF)