Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 3738
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anil K. Narendran, Muralee Krishna S., JJ
B.Rafeeq – Appellant
Versus
The Kerala State Waqf Board – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 2079 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri. ESM.Kabeer, Smt. C.Sheeba
For the Respondents: SRI. JAMSHEED HAFIZ, SC, WAQF BOARD
Judicial intervention in administrative decisions is limited when appropriate relief avenues within the administrative body remain available.
Headnote:The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari under Article 226 to quash Ext.P4 order of the 2nd respondent modifying an earlier order by the 1st respondent Kerala State Waqf Board, contending jurisdictional excess. The Court observed that interference was unwarranted as the petitioner's appeal was pending, indicating appropriate avenues for relief. The final decision dismissed the writ petition but preserved the petitioner's rights to contest the order within the administrative framework.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner filed a writ seeking to quash a modification order. (Para 1) |
| 2. contesting orders on jurisdictional boundaries and variance. (Para 2 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's limited role where administrative appeal is pending. (Para 3 , 4 , 7) |
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner, who is a member of the Padinjare Shafi Muslim Jama-ath Committee and an Executive Committee member elected from Chathanad Muhiyudheen Masjid Association Mahal Committee to the Central Mahal, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 order dated 11.12.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent Chief Executive Officer (in charge), to the extent it modifies Ext.P2 order dated 08.07.2025 of the 1st respondent Kerala State Waqf Board, in I.A.No.283 of 2025 in O.P.No.200 of 2025; an order directing the 3rd respondent Returning Officer, to conduct election to the Executive Committee of the 4th respondent, Padinjare Shafi Muslim Jama-ath, as per Ext.P2 order passed by the 1st respondent Kerala State Waqf Board.
2. In the writ petition, it is contended that in view of the law laid down by this Court in Alu Haji M.V. v. Chief Executive Officer, Kerala State Waqf Board [2018 (2) KHC 156], the 2nd respondent Chief Executive Officer, has no authority to pass orders in matters ceased by the 1st respondent Kerala State Waqf Board. Therefore, Ext.P4 order passed by the 2nd respondent is without jurisdiction. The document marked as Ext.P3 is a notice dated 13.05.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent Returning Officer, regarding the election to the Managing Committee of the Central Mahal.
3. We heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Waqf Board for respondents 1 and 2.
4. The issue that requires consideration in this writ petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P4 order dated 11.12.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent Chief Executive Officer.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Ext.P4 order passed by the 2nd respondent is at variance to Ext.P2 order passed by the 1st respondent Kerala State Waqf Board in I.A.No.283 of 2025 in O.P.No.200 of 2025 and therefore interference of this Court is warranted.
6. On the other hand, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Waqf Board is that Ext.P4 order is not at variance with Ext.P2 order passed by the Kerala State Waqf Board.
7. We do not propose to consider the rival contentions on the above aspect in these proceedings, since O.P.No.200 of 2025 filed by the petitioner is now pending consideration before the 1st respondent Kerala State Waqf Board. If the petitioner has a case that Ext.P4 order of the 2nd respondent is at variance with Ext.P2 order passed by the Kerala State Waqf Board, he could have pointed out the said fact before the 1st respondent Kerala State Waqf Board, by filing an appropriate application in O.P.No.200 of 2025, seeking appropriate relief. In such matters, no interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted.
In such circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent Kerala State Waqf Board, against Ext.P4 order dated 11.12.2025 of the 2nd respondent Chief Executive Officer, raising appropriate legal and factual contentions.
Sd/-
