CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 10 MAD CK 0387

P. Mohamed Hussain vs Tamil Nadu Wakf Board and The Executive Officer cum Election Officer

Madras High Court · Decided on 29 October 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
M. Jaichandren, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (MD) No. 4929 of 2008
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 371 words

M. Jaichandren, J.—This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the Special Resolution No. 4, passed by the first Respondent, dated 14.06.1990, as modified by the Special Resolution No. 11, passed by the first Respondent, dated 23.02.2000, and to quash the same.

2.

Heard Mr. T.R. Jeyapalam, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, Mr. M. Ajmalkhan, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the first Respondent, as well as Mr. K.K. Senthil, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the second Respondent.

3.

The resolutions under challenge are in respect of the tenancy of a person, who has jural relationship, as a lessee of a Wakf and as to whether he can become a member or a Muthavalli of a Wakf.

4.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents had pointed out that the said issue is to be agitated before the Wakf Tribunal, u/s 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995. An order of the Division Bench of this Court, made in Mukram Sherif v. Moinudeen Sheriff and Anr. (2005 2 L.W.614) had been placed before this Court, to substantiate his contention.

5.

In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is not maintainable, as there is an efficacious appellate remedy provided, u/s 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995.

6.

It has also been stated that in similar circumstances, this Court had dismissed the writ petitions concerned, permitting the Petitioner to approach the Wakf Tribunal, u/s 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents had placed before this Court an order, dated 08.09.2010, made in W.P.(MD) No. 10406 of 2010, in support of his contention.

7.

In view of the contentions raised by the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and in view of the earlier order passed by this Court, on 08.09.2010, in W.P.(MD) No. 10406 of 2010, the present writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the Petitioner to seek the necessary relief, before the appropriate forum, in the manner known to law, if so advised.