S. Sait Basha vs The Chief Executive Officer and Others

M. Venugopal, J.—The Petitioner has focussed the instant Writ Petition praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for

the records of the 1st Respondent in Se. Mu. Order No. 8485/08/A5/Trichy dated 01.03.2013 and to quash the same. Further, the Petitioner has

sought for issuance of direction to the 1st Respondent in approving the election of the Petitioner as Muthavalli of the Jahir Asara Maqboora Wakf

of Valigandapuram, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District. The 1st Respondent/Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Chennai, in

his impugned proceedings dated 01.03.2013, has passed an order of 9 Members Interim Committee for the Jahir Asara Maqboora Wakf of

Valikandapuram from the date of Board''s Resolution viz., from 03.01.2013 for a period of one year. Challenging the said order dated

01.03.2013 of the 1st Respondent in appointing Interim Committee in respect of Jahir Asara Maqboora Wakf of Valikandapuram and further

praying for issuance of a direction by this Court to the 1st Respondent in approving his election as Petitioner as Muthavalli for the aforesaid Wakf,

the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the order appointing the Interim Committee is not known to the Wakf Act, 1995, besides the

same being without jurisdiction.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the Respondents 1 and 2 failed to appreciate that the Petitioner was duly

elected Muthavalli and the Committee was approved by the 1st Respondent in the year 2005, for a period of three years. Later, the election was

duly conducted and that the Petitioner was elected as Muthavalli. As such, it is submitted on the side of the Petitioner, the Petitioner and other

Committee Members are entitled to hold office for a term of three years and till the newly elected body assumes office. Moreover, the approval of

the same is pending before the 1st Respondent and when that being the factual position, the impugned order dated 01.03.2013 in appointing an

Interim Management Committee is uncalled for one and also it is against the very scheme of the Wakf Act.

Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner projects a legal plea that the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board as the superintendence

over the Wakfs and while exercising the powers in terms of Section 67 of the Wakf Act, 1995, the Muthavalli ought to be put on notice and after

passing the order of supersession only the question of nominating a new or interim committee will arise for consideration. Viewed in that angle, the

impugned order dated 01.03.2013 in favour of the Respondents 3 to 11 is not sustainable, in the eye of law.

That apart, the plea taken on behalf of the Petitioner is that the impugned order dated 01.03.2013 passed by the 1st Respondent in appointing

the Respondents 3 to 11 as Interim Committee Members is tainted with malafides and passed for extraneous considerations.

According to the Petitioner, the rival groups have approached the Wakf Tribunal questioning his authority and power to continue as Muthavalli

and the Wakf Board is also a party Respondent. The Tribunal has declined to pass an order of injunction against the Petitioner, finding that he is

serving as Muthavalli.

The Learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 submits that the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable both on law and facts.

Further, the suit in W.O.P. No. 5 of 2011 before the Learned Principal Judge, Trichy (Wakf Tribunal) filed by one Syed Kasi and others in regard

to the appointment of Muthavalli to the wakf, Valikandapuram, Perambalur District is pending and therefore, the Petitioner is not justified to file the

present Writ Petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

The Learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 forcibly contends that as on date the Writ Petitioner is not the Muthavalli of the aforesaid

Wakf in question as the term of office of earlier Committee got expired and the Interim Committee has been constituted by the Tamil Nadu Wakf

Board to carry out the duties of the Wakf.

Apart from the above, it is the categorical plea of the Respondents 1 and 2 that the Writ Petitioner is in illegal possession of 6 acres of

agricultural land and two houses owned by the Wakf. Also, the Petitioner has not taken steps to protect the Khabarasthan and added further, the

Wakf Board is entitled to conduct the election by the Secret Ballet.

According to the Petitioner, he is the present Muthavalli of Jahir Asara Maqboora Wakf of Valikandapuram, Perambalur District and that the

Wakf was originally and hereditarily managed by Syed Abdul Gafoor Sahib for years together. After his death, one of his son viz., Syed Abdul

Raoof succeeded him and managed the Wakf affairs for about 30 years. Later, the Jamath staked claim that the management has vested with it and

hence, filed a suit and obtained a decree in favour of Jamath. Pursuant to the decree, one Jamaludden S/o Dawood Sahib took over as Muthavalli

and for certain reasons, Jamath choose to restrict his tenure for one year and elected Syed Khader S/o. Syed Kareem Sahib, who was in-charge

for 14 years. Also that during his tenure, neither the rules nor regulations including the provisions of the Wakf Act was followed while managing the

affairs of the Wakf.

It is the submission of the Petitioner that the Jamath after due notice to all concerned, convened its meeting on 15.08.2001 under the

supervision of the Inspector of Wakfs, Trichy North and on the basis of secret ballot, elected 9 members and out of them, Syed Usman was

designated as the President/Muthavalli. The aforesaid election was approved by the then Wakf Inspector, Trichy North. Though the tenure of the

Committee to administer the Wakf was fixed at three years due to the month of Ramzaan and other factors, the next election of the Committee to

administer the Wakf was held on 04.03.2005. On that day, 15 members were unanimously elected and the period of office was fixed as 3 years.

The recorded resolution was signed and sealed by Janab S. Hassan Bava on behalf of the Wakf Board, who was present during the election

process. On 08.03.2005 the President/Muthavalli and other Office bearers were elected and Janab B. Maroof was elected as the

President/Muthavalli and above resolution was approved by the 1st Respondent in his proceedings dated 20.10.2005 and the tenure of the

Committee was expired on 08.03.2008 [on completion of three years].

After the expiry of the term of committee members, including the Muthavalli, the 2nd Respondent, in his proceedings dated 03.04.2008, issued

instructions to conduct fresh elections. Accordingly, a publication was made and it was intimated that the election would be held on 09.05.2008.

However, on that day, none of the officials from the Wakf Board turned up and announcement was made in the Jumma that election process will

be taken up on 16.05.2008 after the next Jumma prayers and the same was intimated to the Inspector of Wakfs. On 16.05.2008, a 20 Members

Committee was elected in the presence of the Inspector of Wakfs and the minutes of the meeting was also countersigned by him.

On 03.06.2008, all the 20 Members of the Committee and majority members of the Jamath congregated at the Central Zone Wakf Office,

Trichy as directed by the Inspector of Wakfs. In the said meeting and in the presence of the Superintendent of Wakf, Central Zone and Inspector

of Wakfs, Trichy North, he was elected as President/Muthavalli apart from other 13 office bearers. The Superintendent of Wakf, Central Zone

and the Inspector of Wakf (North) had also countersigned the minutes. As such, the election process came to an end and the present Committee is

in effective management ever since 16.05.2008. As per the tenure fixed, they are entitled to hold office for three years or till an elected body takes

over.

The Petitioner, after assuming the office of Muthavalli, took efforts to retrieve a Khabrasthan (burial ground) which was used since time

immemorial by the Jamath of Valigandapuram. The said Khabrasthan in S.F. No. 2345/5 and 234/6 of Valigandapuram Village also consists of a

Dharga and a Mosque. Earlier, the above land was classified as ''Natham'' and lying vacant. Considering the long usage as burial ground, the then

District Revenue Officer, Trichy made the assignment in favour of the Dharga. Accordingly, an order was passed on 27.10.1995 assigning the said

land measuring an extent of 1.09.0 hectares in favour of the Dharga. Pursuant to the assignment orders, the land was earmarked and patta was

also issued by the Revenue Authorities in favour of the Dharga. When efforts to construct a compound wall to protect the Khabrasthan were

initiated certain vested interests attempted to prevent it, then, the Petitioner filed W.P. No. 5570 of 2009 before this Court and this Court directed

the District Collector and the Superintendent of Police, Perambalur to initiate suitable action in case of any hindrance by any third parties. After the

orders of the Court, a Peace Committee was formed consisting of the Muslim Jamath headed by him in the capacity of Muthavalli of the Wakf on

one side and a group of villagers and non-Muslims on the other side. Finally, an extent of acre 1-39 cents in S.F. No. 234/2004, was agreed to be

taken over by the Marsha-Aulia-Dharga. Thus, the major portion of the land has been protected by erecting the compound and due to paucity of

funds, the rest of the work remains incomplete.

When that being the factual position, at the instance of rival group, the Inspector of Wakfs issued a communication dated 06.10.2010 stating

that the term of Committee came to an ends as early as on 08.03.2008 and thereafter, no permission was granted to anybody to administer the

affairs of the Wakf. As per the existing procedure, the term of office is for a period of three years and that he was elected as Muthavalli on

16.05.2008 and therefore, he was entitled to discharge the duties of Muthavalli for the above period and till fresh elections are conducted.

The Petitioner filed W.P. No. 4266 of 2011 to approve the Committee elected on 16.05.2008. This Court, on 23.02.2011 directed the 1st

Respondent to pass orders within a period of six weeks and also made clear that if any person is functioning unauthorisedly, it is open for the 1st

Respondent to take appropriate action. Thereafter, the 1st Respondent issued notice by enquiry which was fixed on 17.05.2011. In the

meanwhile, due to change of Government and vacancy caused in the post of Chairman of the Board, no further action was taken.

The rival parties filed W.O.P. No. 5 of 2011 on the file of Wakf Tribunal/Principal Sub Judge, Trichy questioning the Petitioner''s functioning

as Muthavalli, the Petitioner filed W.O.P. No. 133 of 2011 seeking the relief of permanent injunction and both the O.Ps. are pending for disposal.

Also, the rival parties filed I.A. No. 143 of 2011 in W.O.P. No. 5 of 2011 seeking interim injunction restraining the Petitioner from dealing with

the properties. The said application was dismissed on 30.09.2011 and that the 1st Respondent remained exparte and also not filed any counter.

The Tribunal found that the Petitioner is continuing as Muthavalli. The rival group being aggrieved against the said order filed C.R.P. No. 646 of

2012.

The pivotal contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is when once the Petitioner has been elected as Muthavalli apart from other

office bearers and also that a valid nomination was made to the Wakf and thereafter, any third party or the Respondents have no right to interfere

with the functions of Muthavalli. Therefore, the appointment of the Interim Management Committee is totally uncalled for and consequently is liable

to be set aside.

The contention of the Respondents is that the Petitioner is illegal claiming himself as Muthavalli of Wakf and further that he along with 19 others

claim to be elected as Committee Members. Moreover, the Petitioner is in possession of 6 acres of agricultural land and 2 house property as

lessee under the Wakf. Therefore, 7 members objected to Petitioner''s unauthorised nomination and made representation to the Wakf Board. The

Wakf Board has not approved the said election of the 20 Committee Members and the President of the Wakf. Subsequently, the Wakf Members

have not met at any point of time to carry out the functions of the Wakf. As such, the Petitioner cannot unilaterally claim himself as

President/Muthavalli of the Wakf. Even otherwise, the Committee of 13 members can hold office only for a period of 3 years.

An I.A. No. 143 of 2011 was filed on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Trichy (Wakf Tribunal) claiming the relief of temporary injunction

restraining the Writ Petitioner and others from illegally dealing with the Wakf property, which ultimately came to be dismissed on 30.09.2011. As

against the order dated 30.09.2011 in I.A. No. 143 of 2011 in W.O.P. No. 5 of 2011, one Syed Kasim and others filed C.R.P. (PD)(MD) No.

646 of 2012 before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. On 18.12.2012, the Madurai Bench of this Court held that the representation

given by the Revision Petitioners before the Wakf Board in regard to the claim of the Writ Petitioner as Muthavalli and his conduct in dealing with

the property will have to be enquired into by the Wakf Board. Also, this Court directed the Tribunal to enquire into the complaint as regards the

alienation of Wakf Property. Finally, the Civil Revision Petition came to be disposed of on 18.12.2012. Indeed, this Court granted liberty to the

Wakf Board to pass suitable orders on the basis of complaints before the Board. Inasmuch as the order is against the Writ Petitioner, he

deliberately suppressed the said order and stated that the Civil Revision Petition is pending.

In any event, it is submitted on behalf of the Respondents that the Petitioner cannot claim any right after 15.05.2011. Added further, he is not

in the Management of the affairs of Wakf. When the Petitioner has no right to deal with the property of the Wakf, the interim stay granted by this

Court on 22.03.2013 in M.P. No. 2 of 2013 in W.P. No. 7244 of 2013 needs to be vacated, in the interest of Justice.

The Learned Counsel for the Respondents 3 to 11 contends that Section 67 of the Wakf Act speaks of ''Supervision and Supersession of

Committee of Management''. As a matter of fact, Section 67 applies to a committee of management appointed by the Wakf. Such committee shall

continue to function unless it is superseded by the Wakf Board or until the expiry of its term as may be specified by the Wakf whichever is earlier.

The Committee is to function under the direction, control and supervision of the Board. The scheme of management of the Wakf by a Committee

may be modified by the Board in order to bring the scheme in conformity with the directions of the Wakf or the provisions of the Wakf Act and the

rules made thereunder. However, such a modification can be effected by the Board only after due notice to the Committee and persons interested

in the Wakf.

A reading of the ingredients of Section 67(2) of the Wakf Act shows that power on the Wakf Board to supersede the committee has been

conferred on it, if it is not satisfactorily or properly functioning or if there is any mismanagement of the Wakf or it is just and necessary to do so in

the interest of Wakf, after giving not less than one month''s notice to the committee to show cause. The principles of natural justice require a regular

enquiry before supersession is ordered. The order of the Board shall be published in the prescribed manner and shall be final and binding on the

Muthavalli and all persons interested in the Wakf. An appeal against the order of the Wakf Board lies to the Tribunal within 60 days from the date

of the order, which must be construed as the date of publication of the order. The Tribunal, however, has no power to suspend or stay the

operation of the order pending appeal. Also that the Board is empowered to constitute a new committee simultaneously. In reality, the new

committee has to act in conformity with the directions of the Wakf, the purposes of the Wakf and any usage or custom of the Wakf sanctioned by

particular school of Muslim law as prescribed u/s 32(1) of the Act.

It cannot be gainsaid that the Wakf Board instead of superseding the committee may remove any member of the committee if he has abused as

a position of the member or has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Wakf, after providing him reasonable opportunity of being heard

against the proposed removal. The aggrieved member has the right of appeal to the Tribunal within thirty days of the date of service of the order

and the order of the Tribunal on appeal is final in this regard.

At this juncture, a mere cursory glance of the ingredients of Section 32 of the Wakf Act, 1995 clearly point out that the Wakf Board has been

enjoined with wide powers. The Wakf Board has general superintendence of all wakfs in a State. The primordial duty of the Wakf Board is to

monitor that the wakfs under its superintendence or properly controlled, maintained, administered and more importantly, the income derived

therefrom has been duly applied to the aim for which such Wakfs are established.

One cannot ignore an important fact that the power vested in the Wakf Board under the Wakf Act, 1995 is in the manner of trust. As a logical

corollary, to avoid and prevent misapplication and misappropriation of the income from the wakf properties, the Wakf Board has to oversee the

income and expenditure of every wakf with a hawk''s eye/eagle eye. Undoubtedly, the Wakf Board is empowered to issue appropriate directions

to the mutawalli for proper administration of wakf, but the directions of the Wakf Board ought to be legal and must fit in within the competence of

the Board being the supervisory authority of the wakfs.

It is to be borne in mind that Section 69(5) of the Wakf Act enjoins the Wakf Board to appoint suitable person to perform all or any of the

functions of mutawalli and to exercise the powers and duties of mutawalli pending the framing of the scheme. The Board, while exercising power

u/s 69 of the Wakf Act, must consider the necessity or desirability of framing a scheme for proper administration of the Wakf in question. If the

Wakf Board is administered effectively, properly and satisfactorily, then, there is no scope for the Wakf Board to exercise its powers u/s 69 of the

Act.

At this stage, this Court pertinently makes a useful reference to the following decisions, in the interest of Justice:

(a) In the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in I. Salam Khan Vs. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board and Others, it is held as under:

Under Section 83(5) of the Wakf Act, 1995, the Tribunal has all powers of a Civil Court under the ''Code of Civil Procedure''. Availability of

alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the filing of a writ petition. But at the same time it is well settled that writ jurisdiction is discretionary

jurisdiction and when there is an alternative remedy the party must first avail of that remedy before invoking the writ jurisdiction.

(b) In the decision of this Court in S.A.K. Ibrahim and others V. Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, represented by its Chair Person, Chennai 600 020 and

18 others, (2007) 6 MLJ 783, it is held thus:

As per Section 32 of the Wakf Act, 1995, the Wakf Board has got power to give direction for the administration of the wakf to settle scheme for

management of the wakf. The only thing that has to be followed by the Board is that before such settlement shall be made, parties affected shall be

given an opportunity of being heard.

(c) In the decision Maulvi Abdul Rahman Siyai Vs. Sardar Maqbool Hasan and Others, , at special page 68, in paragraph 21, it is observed as

follows:

The expression ''other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property'' is very comprehensive and is of wide import or amplitude which may

embrace in its sweep any matter relating to the management of wakf and wakf property, therefore, the appointment of the Mutawalli or the

Committee for management of the wakf in my considered opinion, would fall within the ambit of expression ''other matter relating to a wakf or

wakf property'' and can be decided by the Wakf Tribunals.

(d) In the decision A.M. Ali Akbar and another V. Keelakarai South Street Jamath Masjid Paripalana Committee represented by its A.M. Ali

Akbar and Another Vs. Keelakarai South Street Jamath Masjid Paripalana Committee and Others, it is laid down as follows:

The Wakf Act is a complete Code by itself. The Tribunal is constituted under the Act by the State Government under notification. The powers of

the Tribunal are restricted only to the disputes specifically referred in Sec. 83(1) of the Act to be adjudicated. Under Sec. 83(1) of the Act, the

Tribunal is empowered to determine the dispute, question or other matters relating to Wakf or Wakf property and not in respect of an application

for permanent injunction as has been filed by the 1st respondent in W.O.P. No. 2 of 2001. In this context, the words ""or other matter which is

required by or under the Act to be determined by the Tribunal"" shall be referable only to Secs. 6, 7, 76(4), 70(1) & (2) and Sec. 94. None of the

provisions of the Act either expressly or impliedly empowers the Tribunal to entertain, adjudicate upon and decide a petition for permanent

injunction. Sec. 85 of the Act also does not specifically bar the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain a suit for injunction. Sec. 94 of the Act also

empowers the Tribunal to issue direction to mutawalli to pay to the Board or to any person authorised by the Board the amount necessary for the

performance of such Act where mutawalli who is under an obligation to perform any act which is recognised by Muslim law as pious, religious or

charitable and the mutawalli fails to perform such Act. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the word used

any dispute"" shall also mean a dispute relating to the managing committee of the Jamath and the word ""any"" used in Sec. 83(1) of the act shall

mean every and whatever the dispute relating to a Wakf and the said word ""Wakf"" does relate to the managing committee cannot be accepted. It

is also to be noted that the power to order injunction shall vest with the Civil Court by virtue of Secs. 39 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act.

(e) In the decision Intazamiya Committee Id Gah, Morar Vs. M.P. Wakf Board, Bhopal, at page 48 & 49, it is held as follows:

A careful perusal of the aforesaid principle shows that the present case is covered within the four corners of this principle. Section 43 of the Wakf

Act provides for removal of mutawallies. Sub-clause (4A) thereof is important. Under this provision, a Mutawalli who is aggrieved by an order

passed under any of the clauses (d) to (l) of sub-sec. (1), may, within one month from the date of the receipt by him of the order, appeal against

the order to the Tribunal and the decision of the Tribunal on such appeal shall be final. Now, if we peruse the provisions of S. 55C, it specifically

provides exclusion bar to the jurisdiction of Civil Court in respect of matters to be determined by the Tribunal. Thus, if we read S. 43(4A) and S.

55C together, it is crystal clear that the Act has provided a remedy against the order passed by the Board removing Mutawalli from the office on

the grounds mentioned under S. 43, clauses (d) to (1) and in view of S. 55C, if any dispute or question relating to any wakf, wakf property or

other matter is required by or under the Act is to be determined by a tribunal, then the suit or other legal proceedings in Civil Court is barred. Thus,

in this light, if we peruse the aforesaid principle laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, there does not remain any doubt that there is an express

exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under the Wakf Act. The claim of the defendant under these circumstances that the Civil Court had

no jurisdiction is correct. The Civil Court has got no jurisdiction with respect to any matter, which is required by or under the Act has to be

determined by a Tribunal and if under S. 43(4A) an appeal lies against the order of removal to the Tribunal, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction.

Both the learned Courts below have accepted it and I do not find that there is any illegality in the approach of the Courts below.

(f) In the decision of this Court K.P. Zainulabdeen and others Vs. Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Madras and others, at special page 299, in paragraph

11, it is observed as follows:

Where various acts of mismanagement were alleged and if in the course of enquiry the details regarding the same including the unlawful cutting of

trees are ascertained and found out, the Muthawallis cannot escape liability from the consequences thereof.

In the decision Khadar Shariff and Others Vs. Tamil Nadu State Wakf Board and Others, , the Board appointed an Executive Officer to

administer certain wakfs and in one case the Board chose to appoint a committee. A batch of writ petitions was filed and by a common Judgment,

all the writ petitions were dismissed holding that the Board had power to appoint an Executive Officer or a committee to function along with the

mutawalli for proper and better administration of the wakfs. On appeal, the Division Bench of this Court referred to the decision of High Court of

Andhra Pradesh in Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board Vs. Mohd. Hidyathulla, and it is held thus:

If the Board finds that the mutawalli is not fit to continue in management, it can take appropriate proceedings against him. When the Board finds

that there is no case for the removal of the mutawalli, then it cannot resort to a procedure by which he becomes non est. Such a procedure cannot

be brought in even with the aid of the doctrine of implied powers. We hold that the order of the Wakf Board appointing Executive Officers and

appointing managing committee in these cases are ultra vires the powers of the Board and null and void as they cannot be supported by any of the

provisions of the Act.

That apart, it is to be pointed out that the Writ Petitioner in the affidavit filed in the Writ Petition, in paragraph 7, has categorically averred that

the rival group has filed C.R.P. (PD)(MD) No. 646 of 2012 before the Madurai Bench of this Court as against the order dated 30.09.2011

passed in I.A. No. 143 of 2011 in W.O.P. No. 5 of 2011. But, no interim orders have been passed and the same is pending. However, it

transpires that C.R.P. (PD)(MD) No. 646 of 2012 on the file of the Madurai Bench of this Court filed by Syed Kasim and 3 others against

Shettan @ Sait Basha and 3 others, has been disposed of by this Court on 18.12.2012 wherein in paragraphs 13 and 14, it is observed as follows:

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners would vehemently argue that the representation/complaint was given to the Wakf Board as

early as on 26.10.2010, but it is surprising to note that so far the Wakf Board has not initiated any action.

I would like to mandate that the Wakf Board should be vibrant and once such complaints are received, they should enquire into then strictly in

accordance with the spirit of the Act as otherwise, in some cases, miscreants might sell away or encumber the wakf properties and it would be a

post-mortem exercise to run after the sold properties by way of recovering the same by invoking the special powers under the Wakf Act, 1995.

Prevention is better than cure.

Finally, it has granted liberty to the Revision Petitioners to satisfy the Wakf Tribunal about the locus standi of the Revision Petitioners and also

about the attempt on the part of the 1st Respondent to alienate the wakf properties etc.

In view of the disposal of C.R.P. (PD)(MD) No. 646 of 2012 by the Madurai Bench of this Court on 18.12.2012, the averment made by the

Writ Petitioner in the affidavit in the Writ Petition that the C.R.P. No. 646 of 2012 is pending, is contrary to fact, reality and opposed to

conscience, in the considered opinion of this Court.

In short, the Petitioner has filed the Writ Petition on 21.03.2013, after the disposal of C.R.P. (PD)(MD) No. 646 of 2012 by the Madurai

Bench of this Court. As such, at the time of filing of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner is conscience of the disposal of C.R.P. (PD) No. 646 of 2012.

The Writ Petitioner has filed the present Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus in calling for the records of the 1st Respondent in Se. Mu. Order

No. 8485/08/A5, Trichy dated 01.03.2013 and has prayed for quashing of the same. Also, he has sought for the relief to approve the election as

Muthavalli of the Jahir Asara Maqboora Wakf of Valigandapuram, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District. By the impugned orders of the 1st

Respondent dated 01.03.2013, the 1st Respondent/Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Chennai has appointed 9 Members Interim Committee for the

subject wakf in question. As against the order dated 01.03.2013 passed by the 1st Respondent, it is open to the Petitioner to assail the said order

before the Wakf Tribunal [Learned Principal Sub Judge, Trichirappalli] in terms of Section 83 of the Act, since the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is

ousted as per Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995.

When that being the real position, the Petitioner approaching this Court by filing the Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus is not maintainable,

against an impugned order dated 01.03.2013 passed by the 1st Respondent. Also, a plea cannot be taken that existence of alternative remedy

under the Tamil Nadu Wakf Act is not a bar for the Petitioner to approach the Writ Court. Moreover, one cannot take umbrage that alternative

remedy of approaching the Tribunal is only a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and not rule of law in the teeth of decision of the Hon''ble

Supreme Court in I. Salam Khan Vs. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board and Others, Besides these, in a normal fashion, a litigant is to avail the remedy

provided to him under the Tamil Nadu Wakf Act, 1995 before invoking the jurisdiction of the Writ Court at the first instance.

To put it succinctly, when the Wakf Tribunal, being the designated Court, has the necessary jurisdiction, to decide all disputes, questions or

other allied matters pertaining to Wakf property, then, this Court comes to an inevitable conclusion that the present Writ Petition filed by the Writ

Petitioner is not maintainable per se in law. Viewed in that perspective, the interim stay already granted by this Court on 22.03.2013 in M.P. No. 2

of 2013 in W.P. No. 7244 of 2013 and later, extended by an order dated 06.06.2013 till 27.06.2013 are not legal and stand vacated.

Consequently, the Writ Petition fails. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. It is made clear that the

dismissal of the Writ Petition will not preclude the Writ Petitioner to approach the competent forum and to seek appropriate remedy, if any, raising

all factual and legal pleas in the subject matter in issue, if so advised, in accordance with law. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are

also dismissed.