Karnataka HC Quashes Waqf Board's Eleven-Month Ad-Hoc Committee, Restores Rule 54 Mechanism

The Dharwad Bench held that the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf bypassed mandatory Karnataka Wakf Rules by appointing an ad-hoc committee on a minister's recommendation instead of vesting management in the District Waqf Officer as Rule 54 requires.

The High Court of Karnataka's Dharwad Bench, in a writ petition filed by the Bazme Tohid Tanzeem Committee of Mudalagi, Belagavi district, has quashed an Official Memorandum dated 12 February 2026 by which the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf constituted an eleven-member ad-hoc committee for a period of eleven months. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, sitting singly, held that the Board had no authority to substitute the specific mechanism in Rule 54 of the Karnataka Wakf Rules, 2017 with an ad-hoc arrangement, particularly after this Court had on at least two prior occasions directed the Board to follow the statutory procedure. The Court directed the District Waqf Officer, Chikodi, to immediately take charge of the institution and conduct a General Body Meeting to constitute the succeeding managing committee, with the entire exercise to be completed within four months.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The petitioners — the President and Secretary of the Bazme Tohid Tanzeem Committee — challenged Official Memorandum No. KSBA/CMC/26/BGM/2017-18 dated 12 February 2026, by which respondent No. 1, the Chief Executive Officer, Karnataka State Board of Auqaf, constituted an ad-hoc committee headed by respondent No. 3 for management of the Wakf institution at Mudalagi.

The managing committee's earlier three-year term had expired on 12 June 2023. Rather than following the mechanism under Rule 54, the Board had repeatedly appointed an Administrator. When the petitioners first approached this Court in W.P. No. 103173/2022, the Administrator's appointment was stayed and the petition was eventually disposed of on 18 March 2024 directing the parties to maintain status quo. The Board then appointed another Administrator during the subsistence of that status quo order, prompting a fresh petition in W.P. No. 103432/2025. That petition was allowed on 29 October 2025, the appointment was quashed, and the Board was directed to redo the exercise in accordance with law. Despite those directions, the Board issued the impugned Official Memorandum constituting an eleven-member ad-hoc committee for eleven months, with the proposal placed before the Board on the recommendation of the Minister for Wakf and approved as a “special case”.

The Preliminary Objection: Wakf Tribunal or High Court?

Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 raised a preliminary objection to maintainability. The Board's position was that the petitioners had an efficacious alternative remedy before the Wakf Tribunal under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995, and that the High Court ought not to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's judgment in Board of Wakf, West Bengal v. Anis Fatma Begum (2010) 14 SCC 588, and on the Division Bench's affirmation of W.P. No. 104387/2024 in W.A. No. 100561/2024, which had relegated parties to the Tribunal in a matter concerning amendment of an approved scheme of administration. The ad-hoc committee's counsel adopted these submissions.

The Court read Sections 6, 7 and 83 of the Wakf Act together and concluded that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is attracted only in respect of those disputes which the Act specifically requires to be determined by it — principally, whether a property in the list of auqaf is Wakf property, and whether a Wakf is Shia or Sunni. The petitioners were not disputing the institution's character as a Wakf, nor questioning any entry in the list of auqaf.

The Court then turned to the Supreme Court's subsequent judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. State Waqf Board (2022 INSC 155), which had itself examined and distinguished Anis Fatma Begum. That decision established that the High Court must first examine the nature and substance of the challenge: the mere fact that a subject matter relates to a Wakf does not oust Article 226 jurisdiction. Where the challenge targets the legality or competence of the Board's own action — especially where the grievance is that the Board acted contrary to mandatory statutory provisions — the existence of an alternative Tribunal remedy is not an absolute bar.

The Court also distinguished the W.P. No. 104387/2024 – W.A. No. 100561/2024 line of cases on the ground that the challenge in those proceedings was to an order relating to an approved scheme of administration, bringing it within the specific field for which the Act provides a Tribunal remedy. No such challenge to an approved scheme arose here.

There was an additional reason to retain jurisdiction. The impugned action followed repeated proceedings in which this Court had already directed the Board to undertake the statutory exercise. To compel the petitioners to begin afresh before the Tribunal would, in the Court's words, effectively immunise statutory authorities from judicial review even when acting in patent disregard of binding court orders. The alternative remedy rule is one of discretion and self-restraint, not a bar to jurisdiction. Point No. (i) was answered in the affirmative (the action is amenable to writ jurisdiction) and Point No. (ii) in the negative (the petitioners need not approach the Wakf Tribunal).

Rule 54 and the Board's Power Under Section 32

Rule 54 of the Karnataka Wakf Rules, 2017 sets out a structured process for constitution of a succeeding managing committee. Sub-rule (1) requires the Board to appoint or constitute the committee on receipt of proposals forwarded under the relevant scheme. Sub-rules (2) and (3) require the existing committee to initiate the succession process three months before its term ends and to complete it two months before expiry, with the District Waqf Officer supervising the exercise. Sub-rule (4) empowers the District Waqf Officer to initiate the process if the existing committee fails to do so. Sub-rule (5) is the critical provision: if, for any reason, the succeeding committee is not constituted, management and supervision of the Wakf institution automatically vest in the concerned District Waqf Officer, who must then secure constitution of the succeeding committee within three months.

The Court read sub-rule (5) as leaving the Board no room to devise an alternative arrangement of its own choosing. The Rule expressly identifies the authority to assume management in the interregnum and imposes a duty on that authority to secure a new committee. It does not confer an unfettered discretion on the Board to constitute an ad-hoc committee for any period it thinks fit.

The Board had argued that Section 32(2)(o) of the Wakf Act confers a sufficiently wide residuary power to do all acts necessary for the control, maintenance and administration of auqaf, and that constituting an ad-hoc committee falls within this power. The Court rejected this. A general enabling provision cannot be invoked to override an express procedure prescribed by Rules made under the same enactment. Accepting the Board's reading would render Rule 54(5) redundant: whenever a managing committee's term expired, the Board could simply invoke Section 32(2)(o), appoint an ad-hoc body for any duration, and avoid the statutory succession mechanism entirely.

The Court also noted the terms of the impugned Official Memorandum itself. It expressly recorded that the proposal for the ad-hoc committee was placed before the Board at its 365th meeting with the recommendation of the Minister for Wakf and was to be considered as a “special case”. No statutory provision was cited that authorises the Board to treat a management decision as a special case on a ministerial recommendation, and no demonstration was made that the consequences prescribed under Rule 54(5) were inapplicable.

The earlier judicial history reinforced the conclusion. W.P. No. 103432/2025 had been allowed on 29 October 2025 precisely because the Board had acted during the subsistence of a status quo order; the Court had quashed the earlier Administrator appointment and directed the Board to redo the exercise in accordance with law. The impugned Official Memorandum issued thereafter made no reference to compliance with that direction or with the statutory procedure. Point No. (iii) — whether the ad-hoc committee violates Section 32 read with Rules 48 and 54 — was therefore answered in the affirmative.

Outcome

Justice Magadum allowed the writ petition and passed the following directions:

The Official Memorandum dated 12 February 2026 constituting the ad-hoc committee is quashed and set aside. The District Waqf Officer, Chikodi, is directed to forthwith take charge of the management and supervision of the Wakf institution in exercise of the power and duty under Rule 54(5). The District Waqf Officer must schedule a General Body Meeting by giving wide circulation to all persons interested in the institution's management, conduct the meeting under his supervision and in his presence, and formulate a scheme strictly in accordance with Form-42 and Rule 48 of the Karnataka Wakf Rules, 2017. The newly formulated scheme is then to be forwarded to the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf for consideration in accordance with law. The entire exercise is to be completed within four months from receipt of a copy of the order.

Until completion of the exercise, the District Waqf Officer, Chikodi, alone shall control and supervise the management of the institution, without interference by the petitioners, the erstwhile committee, the ad-hoc committee, or any other person. The District Waqf Officer is also directed to take custody of all records, documents, registers, accounts and other materials of the institution and ensure their preservation.

The Court expressly clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the eligibility or entitlement of any individual to be appointed to the succeeding managing committee, leaving that determination to the competent authority under the applicable scheme and Rules.