The Gujarat High Court has held that a Waqf Tribunal cannot exercise administrative and supervisory powers reserved for the Waqf Board, even when its directions are intended to protect Waqf properties. Justice Mool Chand Tyagi allowed an appeal concerning the administration of the Porbandar Suryawad Memon Jamaat Trust and directed the Gujarat State Waqf Board to complete the requisite proceedings within three months.
The Court clarified that concerns over alleged mismanagement cannot justify an authority exercising powers beyond those granted to it by law.
Background
The appeal was filed by Mohammad Yusuf Mohammad Punjani, who stated that he had been appointed Mutawalli of the trust through a resolution passed on 30 December 2023. The dispute arose after the Gujarat State Waqf Board’s Chief Executive Officer appointed an Election Officer and an Assistant Election Officer through an order dated 26 May 2026.
Punjani challenged the appointments before the Waqf Tribunal, Gandhinagar, arguing that the order had been passed without giving him an opportunity to be heard. On 28 July 2026, the Tribunal set aside the appointments and the consequential proceedings.
However, the Tribunal also issued directions concerning the trust’s accounts, records and properties. It ordered an inquiry into alleged financial irregularities, directed the initiation of criminal complaints against persons found responsible, and required steps for appointing successor trustees and an administrator. Punjani challenged these additional directions before the High Court.
The High Court acknowledged that complaints had repeatedly been made about the trust’s administration and that trustee elections had reportedly not been conducted since 1996, despite the applicable bye-laws providing for annual elections. It also noted that earlier proceedings by the Waqf Board had been set aside for failure to follow the prescribed procedure.
Nevertheless, the Court emphasised that these concerns did not expand the Tribunal’s statutory authority.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in M.P. Wakf Board v. Subhan Shah, the Court reiterated the distinction between deciding disputes and supervising administration. The judgment states:
“The Tribunal had been constituted for the purposes mentioned in Section 83 of the 1995 Act. It is an adjudicatory body. Its decision is final and binding but then it could not usurp the jurisdiction of the Board.”
The Court explained that Sections 32, 67 and 70 of the Waqf Act, 1995, provide the Board with powers relating to administration, management, control and inquiries into a Waqf’s affairs. The Tribunal, by contrast, must remain within the jurisdiction conferred on it by the statute.
The Court further observed:
“The failure of a statutory authority to discharge its duties in accordance with law cannot be a ground for another statutory authority to assume powers which have not been conferred upon it.”
The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s judgment to the extent that its directions exceeded the Tribunal’s adjudicatory jurisdiction and entered the Waqf Board’s administrative domain.
The matter was remanded to the Gujarat State Waqf Board, Gandhinagar, which was directed to investigate the complaints in accordance with the Waqf Act, 1995, and the applicable Rules, after giving all concerned persons a proper opportunity to be heard.
The Board must complete the proceedings within three months of receiving a copy of the order and take any consequential action permitted by law.
The appeal was allowed to this extent, the connected applications were disposed of, and no order as to costs was made.
-300x169.webp&w=2048&q=75)
