The court clarified the appropriate recourse for seeking compliance with Waqf Board orders is through statutory provisions, not writ jurisdiction.

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ, order or direction directing the 1^st respondent Manvila Muslim Jama-ath to restore the permanent membership of the petitioner and allow him to continue to pay the subscription amount; to issue a show cause to the 1^st respondent Manvila Muslim Jama-ath as to why the order of the Waqf Board dated 13.12.2023 in O.P.No.18 of 2023 has not yet been complied with.

2. The petitioner filed O.P.No.18 of 2023 before the Kerala State Waqf Board invoking the provisions under Section 32 of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act , 1995, seeking a declaration that his expulsion from Manvila Muslim Jama-ath is illegal and void and also for a direction to the respondents to restore his membership in the rolls of the Jama-ath. The said original petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 order dated 13.12.2023 of the Waqf Board. The operative portion of that order reads thus;

"On the basis of the above discussion it is hereby ordered that the expulsion of the petitioner from the Manvila Muslim Jama-ath is illegal and void and the respondents are directed to restore the membership of the petitioner in the rolls of the above Jama-ath. The petitioner shall co-operate with the lawful orders of Jama-ath Committee and shall pay subscriptions and other dues to the Jama-ath Committee like other members of the Jama-ath. If the respondents fail to obey the above direction, the Divisional Waqf Officer, Thiruvananthapuram, shall initiate prosecution steps against the respondents."

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P2 order dated 13.12.2023 of the State Waqf Board is yet to be implemented. It is in such circumstances, that the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

4. We heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for Kerala State Waqf Board for the 4^th respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, since Ext.P2 order dated 13.12.2023 of the 4^th respondent State Waqf Board is not complied with by the 1^st respondent Jama- ath, the petitioner can invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to see that the said order is implemented, by directing the 1^st respondent Jama-ath to restore the membership of the petitioner and to allow him to continue to pay the subscription amount.

6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for State Waqf Board would point out the provisions contained in Section 61 (1-A)(ii) of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act .

7. Section 61 (1-A)(ii) of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act provides that if a mutawalli fails to carry out the directions of the Collector or the Board, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and also with a fine which shall not be less than twenty thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees.

8. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the draft of the prosecution petition prepared by the Chief Executive Officer of the State Waqf Board is now pending approval by the State Waqf Board.

9. For implementing Ext.P2 order dated 13.12.2023 of the

4^th respondent State Waqf Board, the remedy open to the petitioner is to invoke the statutory provisions contained in Section 61 (1-A)(ii) of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act , by approaching the State Waqf Board, instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At any rate, no writ