HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1705 of 2008 (M/S) Shakeel Ahmad … Petitioner Versus Jama Masjid Welfare Society & others … Respondents Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. D. Barthwal, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Mamta Joshi, Advocate for respondent no. 4. 16th June, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has challenged the orders dated 25.2.2008 and 20.8.2008 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Uttarakhand Wakf Board, Dehradun. The main ground of the petitioner challenging the orders of the Wakf Board is that the aforesaid two orders re totally without jurisdiction inasmuch as it relates to a property which is not a wakf property. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4. The Uttarakhand Wakf Board in its counter affidavit has stated that the property in fact is a wakf property and belongs to the Uttarakhand Wakf Board and has been duly notified as wakf property under Section 6 (2) of the Wakf Act, 1960 and is numbered as Wakf No. 15 in the register. Certain documents have also been annexed by respondent no. 4 pertaining to the aforesaid order. At this juncture, it must be stated that initially the Uttarakhand Wakf Board was not a party in the present writ petition and subsequently impleaded as respondent no. 4 by order of this Court. All the same, inspite of personal service of the Board, no appearance was made initially by the Board and, therefore, on 15.4.2009 following interim order was passed by this Court : “Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3. Admit. Office report shows that the Waqf Board has been served however none is present on behalf of the Waqf Board. Prima facie, the orders dated 25.2.2008 and 20.8.2008 seem to be without jurisdiction, therefore, till the next date of listing the operation and effect of the aforesaid two orders shall remain stayed. Put up for orders on 30.4.2009. Meanwhile the parties shall exchange pleadings.” This is the contention of the petitioner that the property belongs to a society which is registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1860. Be that as it may. Since there is an alternative remedy under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 that the mater has to be heard by the tribunal which has duly been constituted by the State of Uttarakhand, there is no useful purpose that the writ petition shall remain pending before this Court. Writ petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this matter cannot be sent to the tribunal inasmuch as only those matters have to be sent to the tribunal where the property is a wakf property. However, this court is unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. A realistic and practical meaning has to be given to Section 83 of the Wakf Act and a bare reading of Section 83 clearly states that it is well within the jurisdiction of the tribunal to decide whether the property in dispute is wakf property or not. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 15.4.2009 is hereby vacated. The petitioner if advised may pursue his remedy before the tribunal. However, if it goes to the tribunal, the tribunal will first decide as to whether the property in dispute is wakf property or not, and only thereafter proceed with the merit of the case. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 16.6.2009 Avneet