THE PALNI MUSLIM DHARMAPARIPALANA SANGAM THROUGH ITS OFFICE BEARER AND ORS. Vs. THE TAMIL NADU WAKF BOARD THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner in these writ petitions, viz., the Palni Muslim Dharmaparipalana Sangam, is functioning under a scheme framed by the Sub-Court of Dindigul in O.S. No. 29 of 1939 on 12 th April, 1940. Under the terms of the scheme the said Sangam is in management and administration of the wakf properties described in the schedule to the decree of the Sub-Court including certain educational institutions. The scheme makes elaborate provisions for the membership of the Sangam and the election of its President, Vice-President, Secretary and its Managing Committee. The fourth petitioner herein was admittedly the Secretary immediately prior to 17th April, 1973. On 18th April, 1973 the Superintendent of Wakfs, Madurai-9 sent a communication to the fourth petitioner herein who was the Secretary of the Sangam, stating that the Honourable Minister for Wakfs had requested Thiru M.A. Latheef, M.A., B.L., M.L.A. and Thiru Abdul Jabbar, M.L.A. to make an amicable settlement regarding the Mosque matters and therefore Thiru M.A. Latheef and Thiru V.M. Abdul Jabbar would be arriving at Palni on 17th April, 1973 and consequently, he requested the fourth petitioner to make necessary arrangements to assemble the entire Jamath at the Mosque itself on 17th April, 1973 at about 11 a.m. and to produce all the records, accounts, etc. available with him to the representatives Thiruvalargal M.A. Latheef and V.M. Abdul Jabbar, deputed by the Honourable Minister of Wakfs. On receipt of this communication, it is stated by the petitioners that the Manager of the Sangam, on 14th April, 1973, sent a telegram to the said Superintendent stating that the office-bearers of the Sangam were not available in station and they had not heard of any dispute about the Sangam and there was no possibility of their arrival at Palni on 17th April, 1973 and he himself had to attend some court-hearing on that date and therefore he regretted that he could not do anything pursuant to the letter dated, 18th April, 1973 of the said Superintendent. Subsequently, the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, on 29th June, 1973 purported to approve, the committee elected by the Jamathdars on 17th April, 1973 which was presided over by Thiru M.A. Latheef, M.A., B.L. M.L.A. and directed that the said committee consisting of respondents 3 to 9 herein would administer the Sangam for a period of three years. This resolution of the Wakf Board further stated that the committee should render accounts and budget estimate and pay contribution to the Wakf Board as required under the provisions of the Wakfs Act, XXIX of 1954 and the committee was requested to examine the proposal of Jamath to appoint an Executive Officer and to submit proposals, supported by a resolution agreeing to bear the cost on account of employment of the Executive Officer from the funds of the Institution, for the consideration of the Wakf Board. This resolution of the Board was communicated by the Secretary of the Wakf Board in his communication dated 6th July, 1973 to respondents 3 to 9 as well as to the Wakf Inspector, Madurai and the Superintendent of Wakfs, Southern Zone, Madurai. Subsequently on 8th September, 1973 the Wakf Board held its meeting and resolved to appoint an Executive officer for the administration of the Muslim Dharmaparipalana Sangam, Palni Taluk, Madurai District for a period of one year and actually appointed the second respondent herein as such Executive Officer. The Secretary of the Wakf Board, by his communication dated 14th September, 1973, communicated this resolution also. Subsequently, by communication dated 14th November, 1973, the Secretary of the Wakf Board stated that the Executive officer had reported that Thiruvalargal M. Mohamed Gani Rowther and M. Mohamed Badrudeen (the fourth petitioner herein) had not handed over the accounts and other records relating to the Muslim Dharmaparipalana Sangam Madurai District to him and therefore requested both these individuals to hand over the accounts and records relating to the Muslim Dharmaparipalana Sangam to the second respondent herein viz., the Executive Officer. The Petitioners viz., the first petitioner, The Palui Muslim Dharmaparipalana Sangam and petitioners 2 to 8 who claim to have been elected as office-bearers of the Sangam at a meeting held on 4th November, 1973 have filed the present writ petitions praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the communications of the Secretary, State Wakf Board communicating the abovesaid two resolutions of the State Wakf Board approving the election of the committee and appointing an Executive Officer. According to the petitioners herein there was no meeting of the Jamath that took place on 17th April, 1973, that the term of the previous committee members enured till 4th November, 1973, that on 4th November, 1973 a General Body meeting of the Sangam was held and at that meeting petitioners 2 to 8 were elected as office-bearers. According to the petitioners, the resolutions of the Wakf Board approving or electing respondents 3 to 9 as members of the Committee for managing the affairs of the Sangam and its properties as well as appointing an Executive Officer are void and illegal and therefore have to be set aside.

(2.) There is considerable controversy as to a number of happenings in the Sangam; while the petitioners contend that no meeting took place on 17th April, 1973 the respondents contend that a meeting did take place on 17th April, 1973 and the minutes book of the said meeting is produced before this Court. As against this the petitioners have filed affidavit from several individuals who were alleged to have attended the meeting on 17th April, 1973, averring that there was no meeting on 17th April, 1973 and they did not attend the meeting at all. There is a further controversy as to whether the fourth petitioner herein had resigned his office as Secretary of the Sangam on 17th April, 1973 or not. The respondents contend that the fourth petitioner had resigned his office as Secretary on that date, while the fourth petitioner contends that he had not so resigned. In the view I have taken, it is unnecessary to go into these two controversies in the present writ petitions. Equally it is unnecessary to go into the controversy as to whether a meeting of the General Body of the Sangam took place on 4th November, 1973 or not and petitioners 2 to 8 were elected as office bearers of the Sangam.

(3.) As I pointed out already, the petitioners pray for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the two communications of the Secretary, Wakf Board, the first of which, communicating the resolution of the Wakf Board approving the election of respondents 3 to 9 as members of the Managing committee of the first petitioner Sangam and the second appointing the second respondent herein as Executive officer of the Sangam. The question for consideration is whether these proceedings of the State Wakf Board are valid and legal or not.