IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2011 / 2ND ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16850 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER --------------- K.R.B.ISMAIL, S/O.A.MOOSA, AGED 59 YEARS, 'KIRUBOIGOTHI', BADA VILLAGE, MINICOY ISLAND, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP-682 559. BY ADV. SRI.SHYAM PADMAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. MASJID ADMINISTRATION & SULLAMUSBIYAM MADRASSA COMMITTEE, JUMA MASJID, MINICOY ISLAND, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP-682 559, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT. 2. LAKSHADWEEP STATE WAKF BOARD, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, SHANTI PATH ROAD, KAVARATTI-682 555, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. F.G.HUSSAIN MOULAVI, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.ALIBEBEGE MOOSA, FENGENNAGOTHI, BODUATHIRI VILLAGE, MINICOY ISLAND, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP-682 559. R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC, LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16850 of 2011(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE MALAYALAM TRANSLATION OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN 1989. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 26.04.1995 IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.16/1995. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 6.4.2009 IN W.C.1/2009 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH NOTICE DATED 9.6.2009. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DATED 14.7.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL COUNTER STATEMENT IN AUGUST 2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 11.02.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR OWNERSHIP CERTIFICTE DATED 22.8.2007 SUBMITTIED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER., EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF AMIN DATED 23.08.2007 EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 19.02.2008 EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.02.2010 EXT.P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 5.2.2011 ISSUED BY THE CEO OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 15.3.2011 SUBMITTED BY T HE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P13 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTES OF ARGUMENTS DATED 21.3.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN WC. 1/2009. WP(C).No. 16850 of 2011(E) EXT.P14 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN WC.1/2009 DATED 7.4.2011 EXT.P15 : TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION NO.1/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND ANOTHER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P16 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WCRP.1/2011 DATED 2.6.2011 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P17 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4.6.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P18 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DA TED 06.06.2011 TO SURRENDER VACANT POSSESSION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.; EXT.P19 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07.06.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P20 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07.06.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No.16850 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 23rd June , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Exts. P14 and P16 orders passed by the second respondent, Wakf Board, on various grounds. Ext.P14 happens to be the original order passed by the second respondent in W.C.1/2009, which was sought to be reviewed by the petitioner by fling Ext.P15 review petition, which was dismissed by Ext. P16 order. It is stated that the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court since there is no other effective alternate remedy. 2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent. 3. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that there is effective alternate remedy under section 83(2) of the Wakf Act. The said provision reads as follows: “83(2): Any mutawalli person interested in a wakf or any other person aggrieved by an order made under this Act, W.P.(C) No.16850 OF 2011 2 or rules made thereunder, may make an application within the time specified in this Act or where no such time has been specified within such time as may be prescribed, to the Tribunal for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to the wakf.” It is also to be noted that, if the order to be passed by the Tribunal as above goes against, the aggrieved party is still having a remedy as provided under the 'proviso' to Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act , before this Court. In the said circumstance, no interference is warranted and the writ petition is dismissed, however, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue the remedy as provided under the statute. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk