1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.06.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNA and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. ARUMUGHASWAMY W.A. (MD) No.482 of 2011 1 S. Syed Amir Ibrahim 2 S. Syed Hanif Pasha 3 B. Farooz Mohammed Khan Appellants/Petitioners vs. 1 Tamil Nadu Wakf Board represented by its Chairman No.1, Jaffar Sirang Street Vallal Sithakkaathi Nagar George Town, Chennai 600 001 2 S. Syed Kader Mehar Ali 3 G. Badhusha Mohideen Respondents/Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent as against the order dated 10.03.2011 passed in W.P. (MD) No.2638 of 2011. Prayer in W.P. (MD) No.2638 of 2011: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the proceedings of the first respondent Board in the proceedings bearing impugned resolution No.Na.Ka.No.3382/04/E-4/Madurai, dated 23.09.2009 in respect of Sl.No.12 Item No.175/05 passed by the first respondent and quash the same insofar as it omits to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law in respect of charges Nos.5,6,7,8 and 12 rendered therein and consequently direct the first respondent to initiate action in accordance with law in respect of the aforesaid charges. For appellants Mr. G.R. Swaminathan For R1 Mr. K.K. Senthil For RR 2 & 3 Mr. T.R. Jayapalam JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by A. ARUMUGHASWAMY, J.) The petitioners in W.P. (MD) No.2638 of 2011, challenging the order dated 10.03.2011 passed by a learned Single Judge in the said writ petition, have filed the present appeal. 2. The above said writ petition was filed challenging Sl. No.12 of the resolution dated 23.09.2009 passed by the first respondent-Wakf Board and the said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 petitioners have to approach only the Wakf Tribunal which is the appellate forum. 3. The case of the writ petitioners, as culled out from their affidavit, in nutshell, is as under: The subject matter of the writ petition pertains to the affairs of a Trust named Khadiriya Tharikha Trust. Though the term of office of office bearers of that Trust expired in 2005, they managed to continue as office bearers even after that and a lot of irregularities were also reported. Hence, the writ petitioners, as Members of the Executive Committee, lodged a written complaint to the Wakf Board, seeking action against those persons in respect of misappropriation committed by them. Subsequently, the Wakf Board had issued a show cause notice to the then President of the Executive Committee, who, in turn, submitted his reply. After receipt of the said reply and after conducting an enquiry, the respondent Board, finally passed a resolution on 23.09.2009 and the same was impugned in the writ petition. 4. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the writ petitioners, along with three others, had filed W.P. (MD) No.13495 of 2010 which was also dismissed on 08.02.2011 and challenging the said order dated 08.02.2011, no appeal also has been filed by the writ petitioners. With this backdrop, the writ petitioners had filed W.P. (MD)No.2638 of 2011. 5. Heard the respective learned counsel. 6. Admittedly, an appeal provision is contemplated under Section 83 of the Wakf Act. If at all the petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Wakf Board, under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, they can challenge the same only before the Wakf Tribunal which is the appellate authority. 7. In this regard, the only contention of the appellants/writ petitioners is that the Court has to analyse the allegations made against them and pass suitable orders. 8. On the other hand, the contention of the other respondents is that if at all the writ petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Wakf Board, the only course open to them is taking the said order on appeal before the Wakf Tribunal which is the appellate authority and they cannot knock at the doors of the Writ Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Their further contention is that only to circumvent the aspect of limitation, the petitioners had filed the present writ petition. Based on these grounds, their stand is that the writ petition had rightly suffered dismissal before the learned Single Judge and that the writ appeal too has to suffer dismissal. 9. Indisputably, the resolution impugned in the writ petition has been passed by the Wakf Board. If at all the petitioners are aggrieved by the said resolution, the recourse open to them is only to file an appeal before the Wakf Tribunal calling in question, the said resolution and this opinion of ours is also fortified by a very recent judgment of the Hon'ble https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Supreme Court reported in 2011 (1) CTC 636, Board of Wakf, West Bengal and another vs. Anis Fatma Begum and another wherein it has been held in no uncertain terms that when there is a special law providing for a special forum, then, recourse cannot be taken to general law. In fact, to be precise, it has been categorically held in the said judgment that if the subject matter falls under the purview of the Wakf Act, it is only the Wakf Tribunal which has got the jurisdiction to deal with the same. Besides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in a catena of decisions that in the event of availability of alternative remedy, a person aggrieved has to first exhaust the said alternative remedy and cannot straightaway rush to High Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. In the instant case, as already pointed out, since alternative remedy is very much available to the appellants/writ petitioners, without going into the merits of the issue, liberty is given to appellants/writ petitioners to approach the appropriate forum in order to have their grievance redressed, including that of limitation. With the above observation, this writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( CO ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR cad To The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board No.1, Jaffar Sirang Street Vallal Sithakkaathi Nagar, George Town, Chennai 600 001 1CC TO M/S. G.R. SWAMINATHAN, ADVOCATE, SR: 20079: 1CC TO M/S. T.R. JEYAPALAM ADVOCATE, SR: 19846: DM::2011:JUNE:27:: W.A. (MD) No.482 of 2011 3P:4C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/