Back
2023 Supreme(Ker) 75
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ.
Hameedali K.P., S/o. Ammedkutty – Petitioner
Versus
Chief Executive Officer, The Kerala State Wakf Board, V.I.P. Road, Kaloor, Kochi, PIN - 6820172 and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 3964 Of 2023
Decided On : 07-02-2023
For the Petitioner: Sri. Jayesh Mohan Kumar, SC, State Bank Of Travancore, K. Jayesh Mohankumar, Pushparajan Kodoth, Vandana Menon, Vimal Vijay, P. Shamsuddeen.
For the Respondents: Shri. Jamsheed Hafiz, SC, Waqf Board.
Point of Law: Writ jurisdiction is a discretionary jurisdiction, and when there is an efficacious alternate remedy, ordinarily, a party must resort to that remedy first before approaching this Court.
Headnote:
Wakf Act, 1995 - Election - Not heard before order was passed - Challenges election on ground that his right as Muthavalli is affected and that he was not heard before Ext.P1 order was passed - When legislature has provided for a statutory mechanism, high court ought, under normal circumstances to refer to such statutory scheme.
Finding of the Court: When legislature has provided for a statutory mechanism, high court ought, under normal circumstances to refer to such statutory scheme – Court do not find any reason at all for entertaining this writ petition, more so when nothing is pleaded or shown as to why alternate remedy available is not efficacious - Court is not inclined to go into contentions raised by writ petitioner on merits - Going by provisions of Wakf Act, 1995, order impugned is appealable before Wakf Tribunal - Since petitioner claims status of Muthavalli, it is for him to establish same or to challenge Ext.P1 order - Petitioner will also be free to seek impleadment in proceedings before Wakf Board as well if so advised.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
[Mohammed Nias. C.P., J.]
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner claiming to be the present hereditary Muthavalli of the third respondent wakf challenging Ext.P1 order by which the Wakf Board appointed a returning officer to conduct an election to the Juma-ath Committee. The petitioner essentially challenges the election on the ground that his right as Muthavalli is affected and that he was not heard before Ext.P1 order was passed. We are not inclined to interfere with Ext.P1 order for the reasons to follow.
2. Any dispute, question, or other matters whatsoever and whatever manner which arises relating to a wakf property can be decided by the wakf Tribunal. No doubt, alternate remedy is not an absolute bar for filing of the writ petition, but at the same time, it is well settled that writ jurisdiction is a discretionary jurisdiction, and when there is an efficacious alternate remedy, ordinarily, a party must resort to that remedy first before approaching this Court. Entertaining a writ petition straight away without insisting that a party should avail alternate remedy is an over-liberal approach that is causing immense difficulties to the high court, adding to the huge arrears. That apart, these are disputed questions of facts to be decided by the bodies created under the Wakf Act and time has come for this Court to stop entertaining writ petitions seeking directions relating to a wakf and to insist that the party should first approach the authorities under the Act. When the legislature has provided for a statutory mechanism, the high court ought, under normal circumstances to refer to such statutory scheme. We do not find any reason at all for entertaining this writ petition, more so when nothing is pleaded or shown as to why the alternate remedy available is not efficacious.
3. We are not inclined to go into the contentions raised by the writ petitioner on merits. Going by the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995, the order impugned is appealable before the Wakf Tribunal. Since the petitioner claims the status of Muthavalli, it is for him to establish the same or to challenge Ext.P1 order. The petitioner will also be free to seek impleadment in the proceedings before the Wakf Board as well if so advised. Subject to the above, this writ petition is dismissed.
