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.

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P9 order dated 12.02.2026 of the Lakshadweep State Waqf Board, whereby the 5^th respondent, E. P. Attakoya Thangal has been reinstated as Muthawalli of Ujarapalli, Amini Island (which is a Waqf registered with the 1^st respondent Lakshadweep State Waqf Board), purely as an interim arrangement to ensure continuity and orderly administration of the Waqf institution. In the said order, it is made clear that the said permission is granted without prejudice to the rights, claims and contentions of the parties and shall remain strictly subject to the final decision rendered by the Waqf Board in Ext.P1 petition, i.e., W.C.No.4 of 2015 pending before the Lakshadweep State Waqf Board, which is one filed by the petitioner herein, invoking the provisions under Section 64 of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995 (the 1995 Act), seeking removal of the 5^th respondent from Muthawalliship on various grounds.

2. On 17.02.2026, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court noticed that one of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the Waqf Tribunal, Lakshadweep is not functioning, in view of the provisions contained in the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 83 of the 1995 Act, the petitioner can invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in order to challenge Ext.P9 order of the Lakshadweep State Waqf Board.

3. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 18.02.2026, the learned Senior Central Government Counsel for the Union Territory of Lakshadweep Administration has filed a statement dated 18.02.2026, producing therewith Annexures R1(a) to R1(c)

documents. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of that statement read thus;

“2. It has been informed to me that the earlier committee appointed had handed over the key of Ratheep Quotas to the representative of Shri. E.P Attakoya Thangal, the 5^th respondent herein. But the committee members had also reported that they had decided to move to High Court of Kerala for seeking clarification and they requested to permit 2 days’ time to hand over the utensils. Hence, on the basis of that request, 2 days’ time was granted, to hand over the utensils and other related properties. The true copy of the communication F.No.01/05/2013-SDO(AMN)/160 dated

18.02.2026 issued by the Executive Magistrate, Amini Island, to the Chief Executive Officer, Lakshadweep WAQF Board, Kavaratti is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R1(a). The true copy of the Amin report dated Nil, evidencing the handing over of the key is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R1(b).

3. The CEO has received the communication from Nallakoya P.P., the Chairman of the interim committee appointed earlier dated 21.01.2026, expressing his relinquishment of charge. The true copy of that resignation letter dated 21.01.2026, is produced here with and marked as Annexure R1(c).

4. This Hon’ble Court has also directed me to ascertain whether Ext.P9 order was passed by the WAQF Board. My instruction is that the waqf board has not convened its meeting after Ext.P7 judgement. It was also informed to that Ext.P9 order was issued with the approval of Chairperson, Lakshadweep state waqf board in file. The writ petition is also not maintainable as it will be bypassing the scheme of the statute by which the remedy available is before this Hon’ble Court itself as per the Waqf Act.”

4. On the question of maintainability of