Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Waqf Board's Power To Take Over Mosque Management Despite Existence Of Judicial Scheme

In the present case, the mismanagement of Shahji Jamia Mosque, Adoni, was in question, where misappropriation of roughly Rs.150 crores of property and violations of the Act of 1995 was involved, including a failure to submit annual income accounts, budget proposals, and expenditure statements.

In this regard, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati held,

“Regarding overriding effect of the provisions of the Waqf Act by virtue of Section 108A, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the same shall be read in conjunction with Section 32 of the Act. Upon such, the end result would be that the Board will have general superintendence so as to ensure that waqf properties are properly maintained, controlled and administered and income thereof is duly applied to the objects and for the purposes for which such waqf was created, however, such a superintendence, shall be subject to any scheme made by any Court of law, whether before or after the commencement of the Act.”

Facts:

The Court was dealing with a Writ Appeal challenging an order dated 18.08.2016, whereby a Single Judge had upheld the decision of the Waqf Board to intervene in the management of the Shahji Jamia Mosque.

Initially, in lieu of the proper functioning of the elections, trusteeship and governance of the mosque and its properties, the District Court at Bellary framed a scheme for the management of the mosque, which included elections to the Board of Trustees. The scheme was later modified by a judgment in 1953. However, disputes arose with regard to the management of the mosque which led to multiple writ petitions being filed challenging the conduct of the elections and management procedures.

The appellants, members and interested persons in the affairs of Mosque, contested the proceedings dated 17.05.2016 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the waqf Board (Respondent 1) under Section 65(5) of the Act of 1955. They argued that these proceedings contravened the original scheme formulated by the Court and also a compromise decree in O.S.No.4 of 1951, as well as directives from the High Court in W.P.Nos.336 of 2014, 10457 of 2016, and 13150 of 2016, which mandated elections in accordance with the established scheme. Despite these directives, the authorities proceeded to assume management control, prompting the appellants to file a writ petition.

The Single Judge, vide the impugned common order, dismissed the writ petitions, finding no illegality in the takeover, leading to the present appeal.

It was the case of the appellants that the impugned order failed to read Section 108-A with Section 32 of the Act, which saves the scheme formulated by the Court from being overridden by provision of any Act. Additionally, no reason or necessity was accorded explaining why the revised order was passed on 17.05.2016, when an order taking over the management of the mosque was already in place. Lastly, it was argued that mere registration of criminal cases regarding misappropriation of funds does not constitute proof and therefore the Board was not justified in resorting to exercise powers under Section 65(5) of the Act, in the absence of any proof regarding mismanagement of funds.

Opposing these arguments, the respondents supported the impugned order and argued that the provisions of the 1955 Act would prevail over the scheme formulated by the Court wherein misappropriation of funds was alleged without making the Waqf a part. It was further argued that that consequent to registration of criminal cases and considering nature of the allegations made in those criminal cases regarding mismanagement of the waqf properties, the Board, after making enquiry into the matter, had rightly exercised the power available to it under section 65(5) of the Act. It was also contended that while the petitioners were at liberty to participate in the elections, they could not have a grievance over the management of the Board.

Court's Findings:

Against this backdrop, the Court firstly made it clear that Section 65(5) of the 1955 Act confers wide powers upon the Waqf Board to take over the management of the mosque when mismanagement is evident.

“This provision supersedes the general rules outlined in subsection (1). In essence, it provides a mechanism for the Board to step in and directly manage a waqf if its existing management is deemed to be in violation of the law” the Court added.

With respect to the registration of crime alleging misappropriation, the Division Bench noted,

“Mere registration of crime does not per se amount to proof of the allegations regarding mismanagement of properties of the institution as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, non- submissions of accounts coupled with registration of crimes for the allegations of mismanagement of property of the institution must be a strong circumstance for the Board to exercise powers under Section 65(5) of the Waqf Act to protect the waqf properties.”

The Court thus held that the impugned order warranted no interference of the Court and the appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Case Details:

Case Number: WRIT APPEAL NO: 845/2016

Case Title: K.Md.Sadiq And 10 Others and Others v. Chief Executive Officer waqf And 3 Others

Click Here To Read/Download Order