Iftekhar Pathan vs Madhya Pradesh Waqf Board
2022 Latest Caselaw 6568 MP

                                    1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           AT INDORE
                                 BEFORE
                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
                                    &
              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)
                             ON THE 2nd OF MAY, 2022

                       WRIT APPEAL No. 374 of 2022

        Between:-
        IFTEKHAR PATHAN S/O SHRI MAKHDOOM
        HUSSAIN , AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
        SERVICE 55, BARGUNDAPURA, TAAL NAKA,
        JAORA DISTRICT RATLAM, (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                   .....APPELLANT
        (BY SHRI MAQBOOL AHMAD MANSOORI, ADVOCATE)

        AND

1.      MADHYA PRADESH WAQF BOARD THROUGH
        CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER M.P. WAQF BOARD,
        BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.      CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MADHYA PRADESH
        WAQF BOARD BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.      ADMINISTRATOR MADHYA PRADESH                   WAQF
        BOARD BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                .....RESPONDENTS


      T h is appeal is coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE VIVEK
RUSIA passed the following:


                                     ORDER

This writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the M.P.Uchcha Nyayalay (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the writ Court in writ petition No. 7712/2022 whereby the petition has been dismissed for want of alternative and efficacious remedy.

Vide order dated 01.06.2020, the M.P.Waqf Board, Bhopal has constituted a District Waqf Committee headed by the appellant for a period of three years. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant levelling certain allegations. Instead of filing reply to the show-cause notice, the appellant demanded various

documents. Vide order dated 23.03.2022, the Chief Executive Officer, M.P.Waqf Board, Bhopal with the prior approval of the administrator, has dissolved the Committee headed by the present appellant. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, appellant has filed a writ petition, inter alia on the ground that no effective

opportunity of hearing was given to him or committee to defend before passing the said order. The writ Court has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant is having a remedy under Section 67(4) of the Waqf Act, 1995 before the Waqf Tribunal.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the writ Court is having jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition if there is violation of principles of natural justice. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in case of Abdul Mateen vs. M.P. Waqf Board passed in W.A. No. 1296/2017 on 24.107.2018 wherein the Division Bench has not only entertained the petition but quashed the order passed by the Waqf Board.

It is not in dispute that this Court is having jurisdiction to examine the grounds taken in the writ petition specially issue of the principles of natural justice but the Parliament has established the Tribunal only to entertain the cases pertaining to the Waqf property, committee and to examine the action of the Waqf Board. The grounds which are raised in this appeal are also available to be raised before the Waqf Tribunal which is competent to consider and decide them. The appellant is having remedy to approach the Tribunal under Section 67(4) and 83(2) of the Waqf Act as the Tribunal is specifically constituted to entertain the dispute with regard to appointment of Committee by the Waqf Board, appointment of Mutawalli, removal, etc. The aggrieved party is liable to exhaust such remedy before approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The principles of natural justice can also be raised and examined by the Tribunal hence, writ Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition for want of alternate remedy.

In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the writ Court.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

SREEVIDYA
2022.05.04
18:02:58 +05'30'

        (VIVEK RUSIA)       (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
            JUDGE                    JUDGE
     vidya


SREEVIDYA
2022.05.04
18:03:28
+05'30'