The single judge bench of Justice Harish Kumar of the Patna High Court in the case of Md. Nasim Ansari Vs The State of Bihar held that the existence of an alternative remedy cannot be treated as an absolute bar to entertain a writ petition.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner was the secretary of the managing committee which was disqualified by the waqf board. Then, the appeal was preferred before the waqf tribunal. When the appeal was pending before the tribunal another order was passed by the Waqf Board directing the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police to take steps for handing over the key of the Waqf Board.
It was alleged that the order was passed by violating the principles of natural justice. Waqf board passed another order constituting the new Managing Committee and this was challenged before the Waqf tribunal. The waqf tribunal set aside the order passed by the waqf board. Despite several orders passed by the Waqf tribunal, the respondent didn’t comply and again passed the order appointing the Sub-Divisional Officer as an Administrator of the Waqf Estate, which is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, apart from violating the principles of natural justice. The present writ petition is filed to challenge the aforesaid order.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the present writ petition is not maintainable as there exists an alternative remedy of appeal, as provided under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act, 1995 and further under Section 65(2) of the Act, there is a provision of revision against the order of the Waqf Tribunal. It was furthermore contended that the petitioner’s managing committee was granted approval of the chairman for 3 years. However, no steps were taken by the petitioner for the extension of the period of his committee.
Observations of the court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that especially when the order is completely without jurisdiction, when there is a violation of fundamental rights, or when the order impugned is in complete disregard of the principles of natural justice, the existence of alternative remedies cannot be treated as an absolute bar to the High Court's capacity to exercise its authority under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
It was furthermore observed that the principles of natural justice require that any order that interferes with a person's rights and entitlements be complied with and despite several orders passed by the waqf tribunal, no opportunity of being heard was given to the Petitioner.
Based on these considerations, the Hon’ble court set aside the order and directed the waqf board to issue fresh notice to the Petitioner and allow him an opportunity to be heard.
The decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the court disposed of the petitioner.
Case Title: Md. Nasim Ansari Vs The State of Bihar
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22110 of 2019
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Mohammed Abu Haidar, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, AC to GA- 9
Advocate for the State: Mr. Md. Helal Ahmad, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
