The petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with the following main prayers:
" (A) Admit present petition.
(B) Allow present petition by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No.2 to recover the possession of the lands alienated by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, in the interest of justice.
(C) Allow present petition by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No. 1 to exercise the powers conferred under the Act for the appointment of new Mutavalli and also to look after the day to day affairs of the Wakf in the interest of the beneficiaries, in the interest of justice.
(D) Grant interim relief by directing the respondent No.1 to initiate the proceedings under Section 52 of the Act, pending admission hearing and final disposal of present petition, in the interest of justice and equity."
The petitioner is aggrieved on account of action of respondent no.2 & 3 in alienating the Wakf property without prior permission of the Wakf Board as envisaged under Section 51 of The Wakf Act, 1995.
Petitioner has approached this Court on earlier occasion by filing Special Civil Application No. 5685 of 2010, wherein this Court (Coram: K.A. Puj, J, {as he then was}) vide order dated 6/5/2010, without entertaining the petition disposed of the same, with a liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court if no action is taken on the grievance of the petitioner by the Wakf Board.
Shri Kharadi for the petitioner submitted that the property of wakf cannot be alienated by respondent no.2 & 3 without prior permission and, as Wakf Board, despite it being informed appropriately has not taken any action and therefore this petition is required to be maintained.
The Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available as it is observed by the Apex Court in case of Board of Wakf, West Bengal Vs. Anis Fatma Begum, reported in 2010 (0) GLHEL-SC 49193 = 2010 (12) SCALE 323: 2010 (7) Supreme 1059, this petition is not required to be entertained and hence it is rejected on sole ground of availability of efficacious remedy. The Court has not opined on merits in any manner. Order accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
[ S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ] /vgn Top