Mohammed Muzzamil vs State Of Karnataka & Others

Krishna S.Dixit, J

In all these writ petitions the essential dispute relates to the Notification dated 08.10.2021whereby the process for electing the Chairman of the Board has commenced and that the election is scheduled to be held tomorrow ie., 17.11.2021 forenoon.

The learned Advocate General appearing for the State and learned Sr. Panel Counsel representing the Wakf Board vehemently oppose the writ petitions on the ground of availability of alternate & equally efficacious remedy, post election; they also contend that ordinarily the Writ Courts do not grant indulgence once the election process commences.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as in terms of Sec.83 of Wakf Act 1995 as amended in 2013, a Tribunal has been constituted; learned AG is more than justified in pointing out that sub-sections (1) & (2) of Sec.83 of the Act are couched in a very wide language and the dispute of the kind do fit into their four corners; these provisions employ the terms 'determination of any dispute' & 'any person aggrieved' as their building blocks. Thus the petitioners have an alternate & equally efficacious remedy.

The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners despite vehement submissions are not in a position to show the special circumstances that warrant the invocation of writ jurisdiction constitutionally vested in this Court; the matter relating to election and election disputes have to be treated by the special Tribunals constituted under the Act in tune with the observations of the Apex Court in JYOTHI BASU vs. DEBI PRASAD GHOSAL, (1982) 3 SCR 318; this apart, the Writ Court cannot interdict the statutory electoral process consistent with what has been said in MOHINDER SINGH GILL vs. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, AIR 1978 SC 851. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed off permitting the petitioners to raise a dispute under sub-sections (1) & (2) of Sec.83 of 1995 Act and all grounds & contentions are kept open.

However, the State Government or the Wakf Board shall not take up the contention that the Wakf Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute relating to the election of Chairman of the Board.

If election disputes are raised, the same shall be tried & disposed off by the Tribunal within a period of three months after the pleadings are complete and excluding the period of adjournment sought for by the dominant litis. A compliance report shall be submitted to the Registrar General of this Court.

Costs made easy.