ORDER : S.Sounthar, J. The Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the 1 st respondent to conduct enquiry regarding administration of Sayeedani Bi Dargah situated at S.No.167/2, Dindivanam Road, Vandavaasi Town, Thiruvannamalai District and to take appropriate action to bring the Wakf under the direct Management of the Wakf Board by considering the petitioner's representation dated 27.02.2023. 2. According to the petitioner, the Sayeedani Bi Dargah is a registered and notified Wakf under the supervisory control of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board. It is claimed by the petitioner that he is a worshipper of the Wakf and Jamathar and hence, he is a person interested in the Wakf. 3. It is not in dispute that as per the proforma, Wakf is administered by Mutawalli, whose office is Hereditary. It was claimed by the petitioner that Wakf is a renowned Dargah, having worshippers coming from several places and the Wakf gets huge contribution from the General Public. It is also claimed that the funds of the Wakf are not properly accounted and the same is mismanaged by the persons in Management of the Wakf. Accordingly, he submitted a representation dated 27.02.2023 before the 1 st respondent and the same was not considered. Hence, he has filed this writ petition. 4. It is not in dispute that earlier my predecessor passed an order directing the 1 st respondent to get a sworn affidavit from the petitioner regarding the alleged mismanagement and conduct an enquiry in the manner contemplated under Section 71 of the WAKF ACT . Later, upon the application filed by the 2 nd respondent in W.M.P.No.5208 of 2024, my predecessor held that order passed by him in the main writ petition deserved to be recalled as it was passed without hearing the 2 nd respondent and allowed the petition to recall the order. Therefore, the writ petition is again restored to the file and the 2 nd respondent was impleaded in the main writ petition and it is being posted for rehearing. 5. After impleadment, the 2 nd respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the above said Dargah/Wakf is a private one and Waqf Board has got no jurisdiction over the same. 6. 5. After impleadment, the 2 nd respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the above said Dargah/Wakf is a private one and Waqf Board has got no jurisdiction over the same. 6. It is mainly contended by the 2 nd respondent that one A.Shoukath Ali, who was also an office bearer of Dargah misused his position and embezzled the money from the hundiyals and threatened the office bearers that he would approach the 1 st respondent to create commotion and confusion concerning the Dargah. It was claimed by the 2 nd respondent that on 09.08.1987, the said A.Shoukath Ali entered Dargah and had stolen two hundiyals, cupboard keys, and account books etc. Therefore, the Management of the Dargah including the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.167 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court at Vandavasi against the said A.Shoukath Ali seeking injunction from interfering with the functioning of the Dargah. The said suit was decreed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant therein A.Shoukath Ali had filed an appeal in A.S.No.44 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Cheyyar. The Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the said A.Shoukath Ali preferred second appeal in S.A.No.962 of 2015 before this Court and the same was dismissed. However, the injunction granted in favour of the Wakf was restricted till the registration of the Wakf before the 1 st respondent. Against the restriction imposed by this Court, the 2 nd respondent approached the Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition in S.L.P.No.22681 of 2023 and the same is pending. 7. It is further claimed by the 2 nd respondent that the above said A.Shoukath Ali, Wakf Superintendent and Wakf Inspector colluding with each other attempted to interfere with the affairs of the Wakf and hence, the 2 nd respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.69 of 2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Cheyyar seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein namely A.Shoukath Ali, Wakf Inspector and Wakf Superintendent from interfering with the affairs of the Wakf. The said suit was decreed on 25.04.2018 and neither the said A.Shoukath Ali nor the Wakf Officials have preferred any appeal. 8. The said suit was decreed on 25.04.2018 and neither the said A.Shoukath Ali nor the Wakf Officials have preferred any appeal. 8. It is also claimed by the 2 nd respondent that since the Wakf Superintendent and Wakf Inspector attempted to interfere with the affairs of the Wakf along with the said A.Shoukath Ali, the 2 nd respondent also filed a suit in W.O.S.No.251 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thiruvannamalai and the same was transferred to Wakf Tribunal at Chennai and renumbered as W.O.S.No.70 of 2020 and the same is pending. The prayer sought for by the 2 nd respondent in that suit which was filed against the Wakf Board Officials was declaration that subject Wakf was a private Wakf and consequential injunction restraining the Wakf Board from interfering with the 2 nd respondent's right of administration over the Wakf. The 2 nd respondent also sought for a mandatory injunction directing the Wakf Board to delete the entries in the proforma report maintained by it. 9. It is specifically claimed by the 2 nd respondent in the counter affidavit that uppressing all these materials facts concerning affairs of the above said Wakf, the petitioner, who was instigated by above said A.Shoukath Ali, submitted a representation before the 1 st respondent and obtained an order behind the back of the 2 nd respondent in this writ petition and hence, the 2 nd respondent filed an application seeking recall of the order and the same was ordered. On these pleadings, the 2 nd respondent sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under Muslim Law, if a property is dedicated for religious purposes, the same shall be treated as a Wakf and hence, it will come under the control of the 1 st respondent/Wakf Board. He further submitted that the concept of Private Wakf as claimed by the 2 nd respondent is unknown to Muslim Law and hence, the Wakf Board is entitled to look into the allegations of mismanagement. The learned counsel further by taking this Court to Section 61 (a) of the WAKF ACT , submits that merely because subject Wakf is not registered, the Wakf Board will not lose its supervisory power over the same when the Wakf is notified one. The learned counsel further by taking this Court to Section 61 (a) of the WAKF ACT , submits that merely because subject Wakf is not registered, the Wakf Board will not lose its supervisory power over the same when the Wakf is notified one. The learned counsel further submits that failure to apply for registration makes the Mutawalli of the Wakf liable for penalties under Section 61 of the Act. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent vehemently contended that the suit filed by the 2 nd respondent in W.O.S.No.70 of 2020 seeking declaration that subject Wakf is a Private Wakf is pending and hence, the representation filed by the petitioner before the Wakf Board is not maintainable. He further submitted that if at all, it is for the petitioner to get himself impleaded in the pending suit before the Wakf Tribunal and raise the point with regard to the character of the Wakf whether it is a Public Wakf or Private Wakf. 12. The learned counsel further by referring to the earlier proceedings taken by the Management of the Wakf against one A.Shoukath Ali and the decree passed by the Civil Court confirmed by this Court in second appeal, submitted that the person, who lost his legal battle upto the second appeal, now set up the petitioner to give a representation before the 1 st respondent so as to create confusion in the administration of the Wakf and hence, the intention of the petitioner is not a bona fide one and therefore, this Court need not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, he relied on the following judgments:- (i) Nagoor Kaniammal @ Mahboobal Beevi and others vs. Tenkasi Vangaru Muthu Meeran Sahib Thailka Pallivasal and others reported in 2015-2-L.W. 845 (ii) D.Harish vs. Champalatha reported in 2023 (4) CTC 190 (iii) Masjid-e-Mamoor Committee vs. Hasan Moulana Dargah reported in (2024) 4 MLJ 446 13. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent submitted that concept of Private Wakf as contended by the 2 nd respondent is unknown to Muslim Law and hence, the Wakf Board has got Supervisory Power over all notified Wakfs and allegations of the mismanagement made against subject Wakf will be gone into by the 1 st respondent in accordance with law. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of this Court in N.R.Abdul Azeez and others vs. E.Sundaresa Chettiar and others reported in AIR 1993 Madras 169 14. The petitioner submitted a representation before the 1 st respondent/Wakf Board making allegations of mismanagement of Wakf funds and as a consequence, seeks a direction to the 1 st respondent to enquire into the allegations of mismanagement. The simple prayer made by the petitioner seeking enquiry into the allegations made by the Wakf is mainly opposed by the 2 nd respondent, who is incharge of the concerned Wakf on the ground that the said Wakf is a Private Wakf. The learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent by placing reliance on the civil suit proceedings initiated by the management of the Wakf against one A.Shoukath Ali, submitted that writ petition shall be dismissed. It is also stated that the petitioner has filed the representation before the 1 st respondent at the instigation of A.Shoukath Ali. 15. In order to ascertain the true character of the Wakf, it is appropriate to refer to the averment of the 2 nd respondent in the suit filed by him in O.S.No.167 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Vandavasi. The 2 nd respondent-K.Mohammed Ali was arrayed as 3 rd plaintiff in the said suit. The judgment passed by the Principal District Munsif, Vandavasi, is included in the typed-set of papers filed by the 2 nd respondent. 16. In the said judgment, the averments made in the plaint filed by the 2 nd respondent was extracted. A perusal of the extract of the plaint averment in the judgment would indicate, the devotees visiting the Dargah used to make their offerings through hundiyal. Even in the counter affidavit filed by the 2 nd respondent, he admitted there are hundiyals in the Dargah. Therefore, it is clear that Devotees visiting the subject Dargah/Wakf used to make their offerings through hundiyals and it was averred in the plaint that monthly collection would be Rs.3,000/-. It is also stated that monthly collection would be exhibited in the notice board of the Pallivasal. When hundiyals are installed in the Dargah/Wakf and offerings from the Devotees/General Public are accepted through hundiyals, prima facie the subject Wakf acquires the character of Public Wakf, as it receives offerings from general public through hundiyal. 17. It is also stated that monthly collection would be exhibited in the notice board of the Pallivasal. When hundiyals are installed in the Dargah/Wakf and offerings from the Devotees/General Public are accepted through hundiyals, prima facie the subject Wakf acquires the character of Public Wakf, as it receives offerings from general public through hundiyal. 17. Further, in the plaint averment, the 2 nd respondent mentioned that the defendant therein used to get money from the 2 nd respondent (plaintiff therein) for the purposes of visiting Wakf Board concerning the affairs of the suit Dargah. Therefore, even in the plaint averment, the 2 nd respondent admitted that Wakf Board had some control over the subject Wakf and hence, the defendant therein used to visit wakf in connection with the affairs of the Wakf and the defendant used to get money from the plaintiff. The extract of the averment in the plaint prima facie would indicate the public nature of the Wakf. 18. Apart from the said fact that can be gathered from the 2 nd respondent's own averment in his plaint, as contended by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent that once the property is dedicated to God under Muslim Law for religious purpose, the same shall be treated as a Wakf which will come under the supervisory jurisdiction of 1 st respondent. Under Muslim Law, once dedication is made to the God, it will become Wakf property and it will never return to the owner, who made dedication. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of this Court in N.R.Abdul Azeez and others vs. Sundaresa Chettiar and others reported in AIR 1993 Madras 169 , which reads as follows:- “15. ... ... ... ... The owner of the land gave delivery of possession to the mosque. A place may be dedicated as a mosque or masjid without there being any building. But since the building in the nature of a mosque was built a clear case of dedication has been made out. Once the mosque was constructed it stood dedicated to God and all the right, title and interest of the owner got completely extinguished. Once there was a complete dedication to the mosque as a place of public worship any reservation imposed by the owner would be deemed to be void. Once the mosque was constructed it stood dedicated to God and all the right, title and interest of the owner got completely extinguished. Once there was a complete dedication to the mosque as a place of public worship any reservation imposed by the owner would be deemed to be void. Under the Muslim law once the dedication was complete, the property passed from the owner to God and it never returns to the owner and therefore the question of the mosque being private can never arise. The very concept of a private mosque is wholly foreign to the dedication of a mosque for a public purpose under Muslim law. ... ... ... ...” 19. In the counter affidavit of the 2 nd respondent, he clearly mentioned that the persons entombed in the subject Wakf/Dargah were revered with respect by Muslims and Non-Muslims people living around Vandavasi as Sufi Saints. Therefore, it is clear from the averment in the counter affidavit of the 2 nd respondent and his averment in the plaint referred above, subject Wakf is a Dargah dedicated to Sufi Saints and devotees are offering prayers therein. The devotees visiting Dargah are making their offers in the hundiyals installed in the Dargah. 20. In Paragraph No.8 of the counter affidavit, the 2 nd respondent clearly admitted existence of hundiyals in the Dargah. Therefore, it is clear that offerings are being collected from the Devotees visiting the Dargah. Therefore, prima facie the objection raised by the 2 nd respondent that subject Wakf is a Private Wakf appears to be without any substance in view of his own admissions in the counter affidavit and earlier plaint averment. 21. Once it is clear that the subject property is a Dargah wherein general public are allowed to worship and make their monetary offerings through hundiyal, it shall be treated as a Wakf within the meaning of Section 3(r) of WAKF ACT . The definition of Wakf in the WAKF ACT does not make any distintion between Public Wakf or Private Wakf. The only exception is Wakf al al Aulad, wherein there shall be a reservation of the benefit to the descendants of the wakif. The Wakf al al Aulad is the one which is created for the benefit of the descendants of the wakif. The only exception is Wakf al al Aulad, wherein there shall be a reservation of the benefit to the descendants of the wakif. The Wakf al al Aulad is the one which is created for the benefit of the descendants of the wakif. In the case on hand, the 2 nd respondent has not claimed that the profits of the Wakf is reserved for the benefit of the wakif. 22. In view of the admitted fact that there are hundiyals in the Dargah and devotees are making their offerings in the hundiyals, the 1 st respondent can very well exercise its supervisory jurisdiction and consider the allegations of mismanagement made against the management of the Wakf. 23. Therefore, the 1 st respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 27.02.2023 by conducting thorough enquiry, after issuing necessary notice to the petitioner, 2 nd respondent and other interested parties and pass final orders on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The 2 nd respondent is entitled to raise all his objections before the 1 st respondent, the same shall be considered by the 1 st respondent on its own merits, without being influenced by anything observed in this order. 24. With these directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.