THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.17820 of 2009 Dated:10.06.2010 Between: Managing Committee of the Hazrath Heera Sha Miyan Saheb Quibla – Mosque Darga and Graye Yard. ...Petitioner And The A.P.State Wakf Board, Razzak Manzil, A.P.Haj House Building, Opp.Public Gardens, Nampally, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Executive Officer, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.17820 of 2009 ORDER: The Managing Committee of Hazrath Heera Sha Miyan Saheb Quibla Mosque Dargah and Graveyard (hereafter referred to as, the subject Dargah), a notified wakf, is the petitioner in this writ petition filed assailing the proceedings/orders dated 12.05.2009 of the first respondent, namely, Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board (Wakf Board, for brevity). By impugned order, the first respondent appointed the second respondent as Muthawalli of the subject Dargah with attached landed property under Section 42 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (the Act). It is the case of the petitioner that it was appointed as Managing Committee under Section 18 of the Act on 07.11.2001 for a period of one year. But after expiry of the term no new Committee was appointed and the petitioner alone allegedly continued to manage the subject Dargah. It is further case of the petitioner that it has proposed to construct a shopping complex of eight mulgies and necessary sanction is awaited from the authorities. It is, therefore, the grievance of the petitioner that if a Muthawalli is appointed, their functioning will he hampered. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the second respondent is not eligible for being appointed as Muthawalli of the subject Dargah. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 08.09.2009 ordered status quo existing as on that day with regard to appointment of Muthawalli. The second respondent has now moved an application, being W.V.M.P.No.3835 of 2009 (wrongly typed as W.P.M.P.No.3835 of 2009) for vacating the interim order. The first respondent also filed counter affidavit. Therefore, with the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally and is being disposed of by this order. Admittedly, the term of the Committee expired on 06.11.2002. Therefore, the Committee has no right to continue as such, nor has locus standi, being a juristic person, to question the appointment of the second respondent. This Court in Madrasa Ahle Sunnath Bahrul Uloon, Visakhapatnam v State of Andhra Pradesh[1] has held that the person interested referred to in Section 3(k) of the Act is in relation to natural person and it does not take in its fold a juristic person. Further, insofar as the merit of the case is concerned, there is an effective alternative remedy under Section 83(2) of the Act which provides that any person aggrieved by an order or proceeding or resolution of the Wakf Board can file an application/suit before the State Wakf Tribunal. When there is an effective alternative remedy in relation to any dispute, whether the wakf is registered or not, a writ petition would not lie (see M.Bikshapathi v Government of Andhra Pradesh[2], Allauddin Charities and Zakath Wakf v Hameed Ali[3], Syed Muneer v Chief Executive Officer, A.P.State Wakf Board[4], and Salam Khan v Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Chennai[5]). In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the State Wakf Tribunal and seek redressal. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 10.06.2010 vs [1] 2004 (2) ALD 365 = 2004 (2) ALT 647 [2] 1999 (6) ALD 270 (DB) [3] 2002 (1) ALD 67 (DB) [4] 2001 (4) ALD 430 = 2001 (2) LS 321 [5] AIR 2005 Madras 241