Jurisdiction under Article 226 is not maintainable when a Waqf Tribunal is functioning; violations should be addressed through the established statutory remedies.

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 6^th 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 argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that Exts.P5, P6, P7 orders of the State Waqf Board are legally unsustainable. If the petitioners are given a reasonable opportunity, they could have submitted the audited accounts of the waqf and convinced the State Waqf Board that a further audit is not necessary. The bye-law of the waqf specifically provides the procedure for conducting an election to the Managing Committee. There was not even a single instance where a proper election was not conducted. Therefore, the State Waqf Board went wrong in passing Exts.P5 to P7 interim orders, which seriously affect the day-to-day management of the affairs of the waqf.

5. O.P.No.272 of 2025 is one filed by respondents 1 to 5 herein before the Kerala State Waqf Board, invoking the provisions under Sections 32, 47, 63, 69, 69(4) and 70 of the Waqf Act, 1995 , seeking various reliefs, alleging that the waqf, i.e., Eriyad Mosque and Eriyad Mahallu Jama-ath, is not properly managed by the petitioners herein and proper accounts are not regularly submitted before the State Waqf Board, as contemplated under the said Act.

6. The Waqf Act, 1995 , which was re-named as the United Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995, vide Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, is enacted by the Parliament to provide for the better administration of Auqaf and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 32 of the Act deals with the powers and functions of the State Waqf Board. As per sub-section (1) of , subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, the general superintendence of all Auqaf in a State shall vest in the Board established or the State; and it shall be the duty of the Board so to exercise its powers under this Act as to ensure that the Auqaf under its superintendence are properly maintained, controlled and administered and the income thereof is duly applied to the objects and for the purposes for which such Auqaf were created or intended. Section 47 of the Act deals with the audit of accounts of Auqaf; Section 63 deals with the power to appoint Mutawallis in certain cases; Section 69 deals with the power of the Board to frame a scheme for the administration of waqf; (4) deals with the power of the Board to cancel or modify the scheme; and Section 70 deals with inquiry relating to administration of waqf.

7. In I.A.No.388 of 2025 filed in O.P.No.272 of 2025, the State Waqf Board passed Ext.P5 order dated 15.10.2025, whereby the Divisional Waqf Officer was directed to conduct an inquiry and submit report; in I.A.No.389 of 2025, the Waqf Board passed Ext.P6 order; whereby the respondents therein, their representatives and any other person are restrained from conducting election to the Jama-ath committee, without obtaining prior p