The nature of duty performed by a body and the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 extend to 'any other purpose' beyond the enforcement of fundamental rights, and the test to determine the status of a body as a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India emphasizes the public element in its decisions.

Hasnain Massodi, J.

1. Appellants, in Letters Patent Appeals on hand, claim to be in possession of Wakaf property, detailed in respective memoranda of appeals, as lessees thereof. They aggrieved with eviction Orders, whereby they were asked to vacate the Wakaf property (hereinafter referred to as the leased Premises) earlier let out to them by respondent Board, filed writ petitions being OWP Nos. 55, 193, 135, 58, 80, 85, 86, 102 & 103 of 2007. Appellants on the grounds urged in the petitions, sought quashment of orders, whereby they were declared "unauthorized occupants" of the premises in their possession, as also the orders passed subsequent thereto including the eviction orders, directing their eviction from the premises in question. They further prayed for a direction, restraining respondents from interfering in their peaceful use, occupation and enjoyment of the leased premises in their possession as also an appropriate writ declaring Sub-Section 2 of Section 22-B, Sections 22-D, 22-E & 22-K of Jammu and Kashmir Muslims Specified Wakafs and Specified Wakaf Properties (Management Regulations) Act, 2004, (for short, the Act) as unconstitutional. The writ petitions were resisted on the ground that Wakaf Board, constituted under Sub-Section 2 of Section 22-B, Sections 22-D, 22-E & 22-K of Jammu and Kashmir Muslims Specified Wakafs and Specified Wakafs Properties (Management Regulations) Act, 2005, was not 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 Constitution of India and, therefore not amenable to writ jurisdiction. It was pleaded that appellants had equally efficacious, alternate remedy available under the Act and therefore, could not invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court.

2. Learned Writ Court, focused its attention exclusively on the preliminary objections taken to the maintainability of writ petitions. It did not look into and deal with the factual aspects of the case. The Court on going through the provisions of the Act and on scanning the case law on the subject matter, held Wakaf Board not to satisfy the tests, laid down by Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia & Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, 1981 (1) SCC 722, to determine the character of a body and conclude whether it is 'State' within meaning of Article 12 Constitution of India. The Board was, therefore held not to amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

3. Learned Single Judge noticing Sections 44 to 56 of the Act together with Order No. 101, dated 25th August 2005, held Appellants to have an equally efficacious remedy available in the form of an appeal to the Vice Chairman of the Board, to question the eviction orders. The writ Court was not impressed by the case set up as regards constitutionality of Sections 22-B, 22-D, 22-E and 22-K. It observed that provisions of the Act in question were not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case and that in any case the vires of the Act were questioned in a petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matter was awaiting disposal on the date of the judgment. The objections to maintainability of writ petitions having been sustained by the writ Court, all the writ petitions were dismissed at admission stage and interim orders earlier granted, vacated.

4. The writ Court judgment dated September 7, 2007 is questioned in Letters Patent Appeals on hand, on the grounds, detailed in memoranda of appeals.

5. Appellants' case is that writ Court failed to appreciate that the real issue, was whether respondent Board was statutory body, created under a statute, performed statutory functions and as such Authority within the meaning of Article 12 Constitution of India and not whether the Board is a fully autonomous body. The core issue involved in the writ petitions, according to Appellants, was not considered and dealt with by learned Single Judge, in right perspective. The respondent Board, according to Appellants, falls within the expression "Other Authorities" used in Article 12 of the Constitution in as much