Madras High Court
WP(MD)/29648/2026 of S.A.Uthuman Mohaideen Vs The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board on 15 October 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
WP(MD) No. 29648 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011457212026}
and
WMP(MD) Nos. 22550 & 22551 of 2026
S.A.Uthuman Mohaideen,
S/o.S.U.Alla Pitchai Sahib,
149, Kalvath Nayagam Street,
Kadayanallur, Tenkasi District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board.
Represented by its Chairman,
Chennai.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, Chennai.
3. The Superintendent of Waqf,
Durga Building,
No.54, S.N.High Road,
Sripuram, Tenkasi.
4. The Muthawali,
Keezhatheru Naina Mohammed Jumma Pallivasal, Kadayanallur, Tenkasi.
5. K.J.Sheik Mohaideen
No.75/8, Kalandar Masthan Street,
Kadayanallur, Tenkasi - 627751.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records and to quash the impugned proceedings passed by the second
respondent herein vide proceedings in Se.Mu.Order.16721/02/Aa1 T.Veli dated 7/9/2026 as far as Melakatchi representation and pass appropriate direction to recognize the petitioner (S.A.Uthumal Mohaideen) as Melakatchi representative in the administration of Kadayanallur Keelatheru Naina Mohammed Jumma Pallivasal forthwith.
For Petitioner :
Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram
For R1 to R3 :
Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed
Standing Counsel
For R5 :
Mr.H.Arumugam
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Order dated 07.09.2026 of the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board is challenged in this Writ Petition.
2. The dispute pertains to nomination of a representative of Melakatchi to Keezhatheru Naina Mohammed Jumma Pallivasal. The petitioner was nominated by Kadayanallur Lebbai Sahib Muslim Jamatha Mahajanasaba Melakatchi and the fifth respondent was nominated by Keela Muhalla Melakatch Muslim Jamath. By the impugned order, the nomination of the fifth respondent was accepted and that of the petitioner was rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order primarily on two grounds. The first ground of challenge is that principles of natural justice were violated and that the petitioner was not heard. It is submitted that the petitioner was constrained to merely submit a written representation. The second ground of challenge is that vital documents submitted by the petitioner in support of his nomination, such as the sponsor letter dated 09.02.2026, the communication dated 27.03.2026 and report of the Waqf Inspector, Tenkasi, dated 08.05.2026 recommending the petitioner as the representative of Melakatchi, were not taken into consideration.
4. Responding to these contentions, learned counsel for the fifth respondent submits that both parties were heard and that all the documents were considered before recording findings based on appreciation of evidence.
5. Learned counsel for the Waqf Board submits that principles of natural justice were complied with. He relies on the first and second paragraphs of the impugned order in that regard.
6. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the following is recorded therein: “Nkw;gb
[dhg;.S.A.cJkhd ; KifjPd; epakpf;fg;gl;lJ Fwpj;J ftdj;Jld ; guprPyid nra;j thupak;> Nkw;gb egupd; epakdkhdJ Nkw;gb tf;gpd ; 1999 Mk ; Mz;L Vw;g;gLj;jg;gl;l epu;thfj;jpl;lj;jpw;F vjpuhf cs;sjhf thupak; fUJfpwJ. NkYk;> epu;thfj;jpl;ljpYs;s ruj;Jfspy; VNjDk; khw;wk; nra;ag;gl Ntz;Lnkdpy; mjw;F jdpahf [khj;jpduplk ; MNyhrid / Ml;Nrgid Nfhug;gl;L thupaj;jpd; guprPyidf;F cl;gLj;jp> thupaj ; jPu;khdj;jpd; mbg;gilapy ; murpjo; ntspaplg;gl;Nl eilKiwg;gLj;jg;gl Ntz;Lk;. mq;fPfupf;fg;gl;l
epu;thfj ; jpl;lj;jpy; “fPonkh`y;yh Nkyf;fl;rp" tf;gpd ; epu;thfj;jpy; gpujpepjpiaj ; Nju;T nra;Ak ; cupik ngw;w xU gpupthf Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. vdNt. Nkyf;fl;rp gpujpepjpiaj ; Nju;T nra;Ak ; cupikahdJ mq;fPfupf;fg;gl;l jpl;lj;jpy; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;s rk;ge;jg;gl;l Nkyf;fl;rp gpuptpypUe;Nj ngwg;gl Ntz;Lk;. NkYk;> jw;NghJ eilKiwapy ; cs;s mq;fPfupf;fg;gl;l epu;thfj; jpl;lj;jpy;> “filaey;Y} u ; nyg;ig rhfpg ; K];ypk; [khj; kfh[d rig" jdpahf xU gpujpepjpiaj; Nju;T nra;Ak; mjpfhuk; ngw;w mikg;ghf Fwpg;gplg;gltpy;iy. vdNt> Nkw;gb mikg;gpd; %yk; Nkw;nfhs;sg;gl;l epakdk; my;yJ Nju;it kl;Lk ; mbg;gilahff; nfhz;L Nkyf;fl;rp gpujpepjpj;Jtj;ij epu;zapf;f ,ayhJ. ,e;epiyapy;> Nkw;gb filaey;Y}u; nyg;ig rhfpg ; K];ypk; [khj; kfh[d rgh vd;w ngau; tf;gpd; epu;thfj; jpl;lj;jpy; (igyh) ve;j ,lj;jpYk;
Fwpg;gplg;glhj fhuzj;jhy; mtuJ Nfhupf;ifapid epuhfupg;gNj rupahdJ vd thupak; fUJfpwJ. [dhg;.S.A.cJkhd ; KifjPd ; vd;gtiu jq;fspd; fl;rpapd; rhu;ghd gpujpepjp vd;W epakpj;J kD nra;j filaey;Y}u; nyg;ig rhfpg; K];ypk; [khj ; kfh[d rgh vd;w [khj ; mikg;gpw;Fk;> Nkw;gb gs;spthry ; epu;thfj;jpw;Fk;> tf;gpd; epu;thfj ; jpl;lj;jpd;gb (igyh)
vt;tpj njhlu;Gk ; ,y;iy. MfNt filaey;Y}u ; nyg;ig rh`pg; K];ypk; [khmj; kfh[d; rghtpd; rhu;ghf [dhg;.S.A.cJkhd ; KifjPd ; vd;gtiu jq;fsJ gpujpepjpahf njuptpj;J Nkw;gb tf;G epWtdj;jpw;F cWg;gpduhf epakpf;f NfhUk; kD Vwg;GilaJ my;y vd thupak; fUjp mjid epuhfupf;fpwJ.”
7. While the petitioner may be correct in stating that there is no specific reference to the documents relied upon by the petitioner, I find that the petitioner's nomination was rejected primarily on the basis of the Scheme framed in respect of the pallivaasal. The Waqf Board concluded that the nomination made by the Kadayanallur Lebbai Sahib Muslim Jamatha Mahajanasaba Melakatchi is not in consonance with the Scheme. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is a flaw in the decision-making process or that principles of natural justice were violated. The Waqf Act, 1995 provides for a statutory remedy by way of an appeal to the Waqf Tribunal. Consequently, by declining to interfere in judicial review, it is left open to the petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy. All contentions are left open to the rival parties.
8. This Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 15-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No JEN To
1. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, Chennai.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, Chennai.
3. The Superintendent of Waqf, Durga Building, No.54, S.N.High Road, Sripuram, Tenkasi.
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. JEN WP(MD) No. 29648 of 2026 15-10-2026