Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.;- Heard Ms. Vina Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mohd. Sayeed learned counsel for the respondent-Waqf Board. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 02.2.2011 passed by the Chairman, U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, Lucknow by appointing the Committee of Management for managing the affairs of the Waqf in question. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the signatures & thumb impressions of certain persons were fraudulently obtained and that in fact no enquiry was conducted, therefore, the order is bad. 4. Mohd. Sayeed, appearing for the Waqf Board disputes the factual assertions aforesaid and has drawn the attention of the Court that this fact finds mention in the order impugned that out of 11 members of the petitioner's Committee, 8 members have given their affidavits that they have not signed for being included in the said Committee. However, he has raised another objection that the question raised by the petitioner is disputed question of facts and cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction. Relying upon the judgment of Board of Waqf, West Bengal Vs. Anis Fatima Begum and Another; [2011 (29) LCD, 60], he says that the remedy is available before the Tribunal and the writ petition is not maintainable. 5. Under the given facts and circumstances, there is no occasion for this Court to allow the petitioner to bypass the statutory remedy before the tribunal. In the case of Board of Waqf, West Bengal Vs. Anis Fatima Begum and Another (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed in Para 10 that all matters pertaining to Waqfs should be filed in the first instance before the Waqf Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Waqf Act and should not be entertained by the Civil Court of by the High Court straightway under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. That being so, the writ petition is dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the tribunal.