Court directs District Wakf Officer to assume management and conduct fresh elections as per Karnataka Wakf Rules, emphasizing adherence to mandatory statutory provisions and previous judicial directions
In a significant judgment delivered on August 19, 2026, the Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench) invalidated the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf's constitution of an eleven-member ad-hoc committee to manage a Wakf institution in Mudalagi. The petitioners, Bazme Tohid Tanzeem Committee, challenged the Board's action as being in violation of the Karnataka Wakf Rules, 2017, and contrary to the High Court's earlier directions.
Background:
The controversy arose after the term of the earlier managing committee expired on June 12, 2023. Instead of following the statutory procedure prescribed under Rule 54 of the Karnataka Wakf Rules, which mandates automatic vesting of management with the District Wakf Officer if a succeeding committee is not constituted, the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf appointed an ad-hoc committee for a period of eleven months. This appointment was made following a recommendation by the Hon'ble Minister for Wakf and was designated as a "special case," bypassing the statutory mechanism.
The petitioners contended that the Board's action was illegal, as it contravened the mandatory provisions of Rule 54 and ignored the High Court's earlier orders in writ petitions W.P.No.103173/2022 and W.P.No.103432/2025, which had restrained the Board from appointing an Administrator or ad-hoc committee without following due process.
Key Legal Issues:
The Court examined three primary issues:
1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition: Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy before the Wakf Tribunal under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995.
2. Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal vs. High Court: Whether the challenge to constitution of an ad-hoc committee fell within the exclusive domain of the Wakf Tribunal or was amenable to judicial review by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. Legality of the Board's Action: Whether the Board's appointment of an ad-hoc committee for eleven months was in compliance with statutory provisions and the directions of the Court.
Court's Analysis and Findings:
1. Maintainability of Writ Petition and Jurisdiction:
The Court clarified that the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal, as provided under Sections 6, 7, and 83 of the Wakf Act, is confined to adjudication of disputes relating to the character of Wakf property, title, possession, or approved schemes of administration.
Since the petitioners' challenge was not to any such dispute but to the legality of the Board's administrative action in constituting an ad-hoc committee contrary to mandatory rules, the writ jurisdiction was held to be maintainable.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. State Waqf Board (2022 INSC 155), which distinguished the earlier judgment in Board of Wakf, West Bengal v. Anis Fatma Begum (2010) and held that writ jurisdiction can be exercised where the action of the Wakf Board is alleged to be without jurisdiction or contrary to statutory provisions.
2. Violation of Rule 54 of Karnataka Wakf Rules, 2017:
The Court examined Rule 54 which prescribes a detailed mechanism for constitution of managing committees, including:
- - Initiation of the process three months before expiry of the existing committee's term.
- - Supervision by the District Wakf Officer.
- - Automatic vesting of management in the District Wakf Officer if a succeeding committee is not constituted within the stipulated time.
The Court found that the Board's appointment of an ad-hoc committee for eleven months was a clear violation of sub-rule (5) of Rule 54, which mandates automatic vesting with the District Wakf Officer in such cases.
3. Improper Use of Section 32(2)(o):
The Board had relied on Section 32(2)(o) of the Wakf Act, which grants broad powers for maintenance and administration of Wakfs, to justify its action.
The Court rejected this argument, holding that a general enabling provision cannot override specific statutory rules. Allowing such a construction would render Rule 54(5) redundant and permit the Board to bypass mandatory procedures at will.
4. Disregard of Previous Judicial Directions:
The Court noted that the Board's action was taken despite earlier orders directing it to adhere to the statutory mechanism and maintain status quo.
The repeated appointment of Administrators and the constitution of an ad-hoc committee were found to be in blatant disregard of these directions.
Court's Directions:
- - The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned Official Memorandum constituting the ad-hoc committee dated February 12, 2026, was quashed.
- - The District Wakf Officer, Chikodi, was directed to immediately assume management and supervision of the Wakf institution as per Rule 54(5).
- - The District Wakf Officer must conduct a General Body Meeting under his supervision to formulate a scheme in accordance with Rule 48 and Form-42 of the Karnataka Wakf Rules, 2017.
- - The entire process for constitution of the succeeding managing committee is to be completed within four months.
- - The Court clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the eligibility or entitlement of any individual to be part of the succeeding committee, emphasizing strict adherence to the Rules.
Significance:
This judgment underscores the importance of following statutory procedures in Wakf administration and reinforces the High Court's power to exercise judicial review over administrative actions taken by statutory authorities, even when alternative remedies exist, in cases of breach of mandatory provisions or judicial directions.
The ruling ensures that Wakf institutions are managed transparently and in accordance with the law, preventing arbitrary administrative actions by the Wakf Board.
Bottom Line:
Writ jurisdiction is maintainable to challenge the legality of actions by the Wakf Board, even when an alternative statutory remedy exists, if the action is alleged to be contrary to mandatory statutory provisions or in disregard of judicial directions.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Wakf Act, 1995 Sections 6, 7, 32(2)(o), 83; Karnataka Wakf Rules, 2017 Rules 48, 54
