Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
Eriyad Palli @ Eriyad Mahallu Jama-Ath, Pay Bazaar, Eriyad, Kodungallur, Thrissur, Represented By Its Secretary K.K. Abu, S/o. Kunjumuhammed – Appellant
Versus
Aboobacker K.M., Son Of Moidu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners filed under article 226 seeking quash of waqf board orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. review of waqf act provisions regarding tribunal authority. (Para 5 , 6 , 12) |
| 3. maintenance of jurisdiction through waqf tribunal appeals. (Para 11 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 order dated 15.10.2025, Ext.P6 order dated 15.10.2025, and Ext.P7 order dated 15.10.2025 of the State Waqf Board in O.P.No.272 of 2025. They have also sought for an order directing the Waqf Board not to proceed with Exts.P5, P6 and P7 orders before affording them an opportunity of being heard.
2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Waqf Board for the 6th respondent.
3. The issue that requires consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioners can invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging Exts.P5, P6, P7 orders of the State Waqf Board in the interlocutory applications filed in O.P.No.272 of 2025.
4. The argumen
Jurisdiction under Article 226 is not maintainable when a Waqf Tribunal is functioning; violations should be addressed through the established statutory remedies.
Maintainability of challenges to Waqf Board orders requires pursuit through the Waqf Tribunal, rather than direct approaches to the High Court.
Disputes regarding waqf matters must be addressed in designated tribunals rather than in High Court directly.
Petitioner must challenge Waqf Board order before the Waqf Tribunal, not High Court under Article 226.
The Waqf Board lacks inherent power to review decisions under the Waqf Act, 1995; aggrieved parties must seek remedies via statutory Waqf Tribunal.
A writ petition challenging an order related to Waqf management is maintainable directly in the High Court if the Waqf Tribunal is not functioning, under the provisions of the amended Waqf Act.
Parties must seek statutory remedies under the Waqf Act before pursuing matters in High Court when appropriate forums exist.
The court stressed the need for expeditious consideration of pending matters before the Kerala State Wakf Board under the relevant statutory provisions.
The court emphasized the need for timely intervention by the Wakf Board in managing serious governance issues before elections.
Waqf disputes to be adjudicated by Waqf Tribunal/Civil Court, not High Court under Article 226.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
