Waqf Board has ‘no right to delegate’: Andhra Pradesh High Court strikes down appointment of 4 mutawallis

Challenge to December 2025 appointments

The petitioner questioned the legality of the appointments made for a period of two years under Section 63 (power to appoint mutawallis in certain cases) of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development (UWMEED) Act, 1995.

He argued that the Waqf Board had unlawfully delegated its pwowers under Section 27 (delegation of powers by board) of the Act and rejected his candidature despite an enquiry report submitted earlier pumrsuant to tribunal directions.

Core issue: Delegation of statutory power

The central issue before the Andhra Pradesh High Court was whether the Waqf Board could delegate its authority to appoint mutawallis.

The petitioner relied on Section 27 of the Act, which permits delegation but expressly excludes powers under Section 32(2)(g), the provision dealing with the appointment and removal of mutawallis.

The private respondents, however, contended that temporary appointments under Section 63 were distinct and could be delegated, and also argued that disputed questions of fact required adjudication before the Waqf Tribunal.

Court applies literal rule of interpretation

• Rejecting these arguments, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the statutory language is clear and must be applied as it stands.
• The court said the exception carved out under Section 27 squarely covers the power to appoint mutawallis, leaving no scope for delegation even in cases of temporary appointments.
• It emphasised that there was no ambiguity in the statute warranting any interpretative deviation from the plain meaning of the provision.

Writ jurisdiction upheld

• The Andhra Pradesh High Court also rejected the objection that the petitioner should have approached the Waqf Tribunal.
• It held that the issue involved a pure question of law concerning statutory interpretation, and therefore, the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy.
• On the contention that the petitioner had sought a writ of mandamus instead of certiorari (judicial review), the court clarified that mandamus can be issued where a public authority acts beyond its jurisdiction or fails to perform its statutory duties.

Appointments quashed, fresh process directed

Holding that the Waqf Board acted without authority, the high court set aside the impugned proceedings dated December 26, 2025. It directed the authorities to initiate the appointment process afresh in accordance with the law and as expeditiously as possible.

The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs, and all pending interlocutory applications were closed.

The ruling reinforces that statutory functions central to Waqf administration, such as appointing mutawallis, cannot be delegated and must be exercised strictly within the framework of the law.