Time To Stop Entertaining Writ Petitions Relating To Wakf Act, Parties Must First Approach Statutory Authorities: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently observed that time has come for it to stop entertaining writ petitions seeking directions relating to a wakf and to insist that the party should first approach the authorities under the Wakf Act.The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. dismissed a writ petition filed by a person who claimed to be the...
The Kerala High Court recently observed that time has come for it to stop entertaining writ petitions seeking directions relating to a wakf and to insist that the party should first approach the authorities under the Wakf Act.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. dismissed a writ petition filed by a person who claimed to be the present hereditary Muthavalli of the Pannur Karandomthook Juma-Ath Palli Committee and challenged the order by which the Wakf Board had appointed a returning officer to conduct elections to the Juma-ath Committee.
It observed,
"Any dispute, question, or other matters whatsoever and whatever manner which arises relating to a wakf property can be decided by the wakf Tribunal. No doubt, alternate remedy is not an absolute bar for filing of the writ petition, but at the same time, it is well settled that writ jurisdiction is a discretionary jurisdiction, and when there is an efficacious alternate remedy, ordinarily, a party must resort to that remedy first before approaching this Court. Entertaining a writ petition straight away without insisting that a party should avail alternate remedy is an over-liberal approach that is causing immense difficulties to the high court, adding to the huge arrears".
The Court added that the case involved disputed questions of facts which had to be decided by the bodies created under the Wakf Act.
"When the legislature has provided for a statutory mechanism, the high court ought, under normal circumstances to refer to such statutory scheme. We do not find any reason at all for entertaining this writ petition, more so when nothing is pleaded or shown as to why the alternate remedy available is not efficacious", the Court held.
It further found that the impugned order was appealable before the Wakf Board, and that since the petitioner had claimed the status of Muthavalli, it would be for him to establish the same or to challenge the impugned order.
"The petitioner will also be free to seek impleadment in the proceedings before the Wakf Board as well if so advised", the Court added, while dismissing the petition.
Case Title: Hameedali K.P. v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 75