Statutory Process For Forming Waqf Managing Committee Cannot Be Replaced With Ad-Hoc Panel: Karnataka High Court

The Court accordingly quashed the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf’s decision constituting an eleven-member ad-hoc committee for eleven months and directed the District Waqf Officer to undertake the prescribed process for forming the succeeding committee.

The Court was hearing a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging an official memorandum issued by the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf constituting an eleven-member ad-hoc committee to manage the Wakf institution after the earlier committee’s tenure had expired.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum observed: “The question is not whether the Board possesses general supervisory powers over auqaf. Section 32 undoubtedly vests general superintendence of auqaf in the Board and enables it to take measures for their proper maintenance, control and administration. However, the exercise of a general power must necessarily yield to a specific statutory procedure governing a particular field. 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.”

Advocate Shriharsh A. Neelopant appeared for the petitioners; Advocate D.L. Ladkhan appeared for the Board and the District Waqf Officer; Advocate Chetan T. Limbikai appeared for the third respondent.

Background

The petitioners claimed to be the President and Secretary of the Wakf institution’s managing committee. After the committee’s tenure expired, they submitted proposals for constituting a succeeding committee.

Instead of processing the proposals under Rule 54 of the Karnataka Wakf Rules, 2017, the Board appointed an Administrator. The petitioners challenged that action, and the High Court initially granted interim protection before directing the parties to maintain status quo.

When the Board subsequently appointed another Administrator, the petitioners again approached the High Court. That appointment was quashed, and the Board was directed to redo the exercise in accordance with law and the observations made in the earlier proceedings.

The Board thereafter constituted an eleven-member ad-hoc committee for eleven months. The official memorandum recorded that the proposal was accompanied by the recommendation of the Minister for Wakf and had been considered as a “special case”.

The petitioners contended that Rule 54 contained a complete mechanism for constituting a succeeding managing committee. They argued that where no succeeding committee was constituted, management automatically vested in the District Waqf Officer under Rule 54(5), leaving no authority with the Board to create an ad-hoc arrangement.

The Board raised a preliminary objection that the petitioners had an effective alternative remedy before the Wakf Tribunal under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995. On merits, the respondents relied upon Section 32(2)(o) and argued that the Board’s general powers of control, maintenance and administration authorised the ad-hoc arrangement.

Court’s Observations

The Court examined Sections 6, 7 and 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 and held that the present dispute did not concern the institution’s character as a Wakf, its property, title or possession. The challenge was confined to the legality of the Board’s exercise of statutory power.

The Court distinguished Board of Wakf, West Bengal v. Anis Fatma Begum (2010), observing that it did not establish an absolute bar against the exercise of writ jurisdiction in every matter connected with a Wakf.

Relying on State of Andhra Pradesh (now State of Telangana) v. A.P. State Waqf Board (2022), the Court observed: “The principle emerging from State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. State Waqf Board (supra) is that the Court must first examine the nature and substance of the challenge and ascertain whether the dispute is one which is required by or under the Wakf Act to be determined by the Tribunal. The mere fact that the subject matter relates to a Wakf or Wakf property is not, by itself, sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of the High Court. Where the challenge is directed against the legality, validity or competence of the action of the Wakf Board itself, particularly where the grievance is that the Board has acted contrary to the statutory provisions governing the exercise of its power, the existence of an alternative remedy before the Tribunal does not constitute an absolute bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226.”

The Court held that requiring the petitioners to approach the Tribunal despite allegations that the Board had disregarded statutory rules and binding judicial directions would effectively immunise the statutory authority from judicial review.

The Court found that Rule 54 of the Karnataka Wakf Rules, 2017 creates a structured mechanism for constituting a succeeding managing committee. The existing committee must initiate the process before its term expires, while the District Waqf Officer is responsible for supervising it.

Where the existing committee fails to act, the District Waqf Officer must initiate and complete the process. If the succeeding committee is still not constituted, Rule 54(5) provides that management and supervision automatically vest in the District Waqf Officer, who must act to constitute the succeeding committee within three months.

The Court held: “The language employed in sub-rule (5) is significant. 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.”

Accordingly, the Board was required to follow the statutory arrangement instead of repeatedly appointing an Administrator and later constituting an ad-hoc committee.

The Court rejected the argument that Section 32(2)(o) of the Wakf Act, 1995 authorised the Board to constitute the ad-hoc committee. It held that the provision’s general language could not displace the specific mechanism prescribed under Rule 54.

The Court observed: “The submission that Section 32(2)(o) confers wide residuary power upon the Board also cannot be accepted in the manner canvassed by the respondents. Clause (o) enables the Board to generally do all such acts as may be necessary for the control, maintenance and administration of auqaf. The expression ‘necessary’ cannot be construed as conferring an independent and unrestricted power to disregard a specific statutory Rule. A general enabling provision cannot be invoked to defeat an express procedure prescribed by Rules framed under the very enactment.”

The Court reasoned that accepting the Board’s interpretation would render Rule 54(5) redundant because the Board could constitute an ad-hoc committee whenever a regular committee was not formed.

The Court also relied upon Managing Committee, Masjid-E-Idgah, Mysore v. State of Karnataka (1997) to reiterate that the Board’s power over the management of Wakf institutions must be traced to and exercised in accordance with the Act and the Rules.

The Court noted that the earlier judicial proceedings had already required the Board to undertake the exercise in accordance with law. The subsequent official memorandum nevertheless constituted another management structure without demonstrating compliance with Rule 54.

It held that the arrangement was not merely intended to facilitate daily administration but displaced the statutory mechanism for eleven months.

The Court emphasised: “The material on record further demonstrates that the issue has remained unresolved for several years. 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 found that the proper course was for the District Waqf Officer to assume charge under Rule 54(5) and initiate the process for constituting the succeeding committee.

The Court clarified that it had not adjudicated the competing claims of the petitioners or any other interested persons regarding membership of the succeeding managing committee.

It observed: “Before parting with the matter, it is necessary to clarify that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the petitioners or any other interested person to be appointed or elected as members of the succeeding managing committee. The District Waqf Officer shall undertake the exercise strictly in accordance with the Rules, after giving due opportunity to all persons legitimately interested in the management of the Wakf institution.”

Conclusion

The Karnataka High Court allowed the petition and quashed the official memorandum constituting the ad-hoc committee.

The District Waqf Officer was directed to take immediate charge of the institution’s management and convene a General Body Meeting after giving wide notice to all interested persons. The meeting must be conducted under the officer’s supervision, and the scheme must be formulated in accordance with Form 42 and Rule 48 of the Karnataka Wakf Rules, 2017.

The newly formulated scheme must be forwarded to the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf, and the entire exercise must be completed within four months. Until then, the District Waqf Officer alone will control and supervise the institution without interference from the petitioners, the previous committee, the ad-hoc committee or any other person.

The District Waqf Officer was also directed to secure and preserve the institution’s records, documents, registers, accounts and other materials.

Cause Title: Bazme Tohid Tanzeem Committee, Mudalagi & Anr. v. Chief Executive Officer, Karnataka State Board of Auqaf & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC-D:13086)

Click here to read/download Judgment