HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.691 of 2008 29.01.2008 Between: Sajid Hussain and others … Petitioners AND The Chief Executive Officer, A.P.State Wakf Board, Hyderabad and others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.691 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare proceedings, dated 28.12.2007 issued by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.3, whereby the latter was authorised to collect offered items and Hundies of Dargah Hazarat Yakhhoob Shaheed, Annaram Village, Parvathagiri Mandal, Warangal District for one year, as arbitrary and illegal. Heard Sri Azad Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.M.Subhani, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Qureshi, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the record. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that respondent Nos.1 and 2 illegally conferred the right on respondent No.3 to collect goat skin, heads, legs, etc., in the above mentioned Dargah. A perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit shows that petitioner No.4 had filed O.S.No.1 of 2008 before the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Wakf Tribunal’) in respect of right to collect laddu. Under Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’), any mutawalli person interested in a wakf or any other person aggrieved by an order made under the Act or rules made there under, may make an application within the specified time to the Wakf Tribunal for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to the wakf. Inasmuch as the proceedings impugned in this writ petition relate to the wakf, the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy available to question the same before the Wakf Tribunal. The law is well settled that ordinarily this Court would not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherever an effective alternative remedy is available. (See Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad, Muzaffarnagar [1], Harbans Lal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited[2], Secretary, U.P.High School & Intermediate Education, Allahabad v. H.K.Lal [3]) There cannot be any dispute that the remedy under Section 83(2) of the Act is an efficacious alternative remedy and petitioner Nos.1 to 3 have not offered any explanation as to why they failed to avail such remedy. Indeed, petitioner No.4 already approached the Wakf Tribunal. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioners are left free to avail the remedy by approaching the Wakf Tribunal under Section 83(2) of the Act. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.800 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th JANUARY, 2008. kvni [1] AIR 1969 SC 556 [2] 2003(2) SCC 107 [3] (2007) 2 SCC 216