Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 313 (MAD)

Executive Committee v. Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

2014-02-10

T.RAJA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is filed by the Executive Committee represented by its Muthavalli S.K.Syed Abdullah, Syed Abdullah Khalifa Sahib Thaikkal Wakf, challenging the correctness of the order dated 20.12.2012 in SE.MU.Aanai No.7553/12/Aa1/T.Veli passed by the 5th respondent and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's application dated 8.1.2013 on merits and in accordance with law, for the purpose of enforcing the 7th respondent's resolution dated 27.12.2012. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that there is a Muslim Public Wakf called as 'Syed Abdullah Kaleefa Sahib Avargal Magbira Thaikkal' Wakf (hereinafter shortly referred to as "Thaikkal Wakf") situated in Kadayanallur, Tirunelveli District. It was built in the year 1927 for the purpose of lighting, performing Ziarat, Fathiha and Kandoori Urus Festival every year on 7th day of Islamic Calendar Month Zul-Haitha. The nature of the Wakf is pious and religious and the Rule of succession for the office of Muthavalliship is by way of election held by the 7th respondent Thangal Katchi Jamath, according to custom and usage. The said Wakf has been administered for the past 75 years and it comes under the supervisory control of the first respondent Wakf Board as per the provisions of the Wakf Act 1995. 3. The further case of the petitioner shows that the said Kadayanallur Town has got a substantial percentage of Muslim population and they have organised themselves into 4 different social units, which are classified in local parlance as four Katchies or groups i.e., (i) Mela Katchi (ii) Keela Katchi (iii) Thangal Katchi and (iv) Kottar Katchi. The said social units termed as 'Katchies' by its local people, have their own respective groups of family units or members, who are collectively called in Islamic Parlance as Jamath. Every Katchi Jamath has its own Mosques Madarassas (Religious Arabic School for Muslim Children), burial grounds, immovable properties, Educational institutions and hospitals etc., which were all dedicated as Wakf properties. Any form of the above said Wakf institutions, would be exclusively managed only by the particular Katchi Jamath, to which that particular Mosque or Wakf institutions, etc. would belong. Every Katchi Jamath has its own Mosques Madarassas (Religious Arabic School for Muslim Children), burial grounds, immovable properties, Educational institutions and hospitals etc., which were all dedicated as Wakf properties. Any form of the above said Wakf institutions, would be exclusively managed only by the particular Katchi Jamath, to which that particular Mosque or Wakf institutions, etc. would belong. Similarly, the above said 'Thaikkal Wakf' was dedicated and built from the funds of the 7th respondent Thangal Katchi Jamath in order to bestow the spiritual honour for the Holy grave of Syed Abdullah Kalifa Sahib situated therein, as such, Thaikkal Wakf belongs to the 7th respondent Thangal Katchi Jamath, who elects Muthavalli, as per the custom and usage. It is relevant to point out at this juncture that the above said Syed Abdullah Khalifa Sahib, who is the petitioner's Great grandfather was buried in Thaikkal Wakf premises and late H.Sulaiman who is the petitioner's grandfather and the elder son of H.Sulaiman were also buried in the same Thaikkal Wakf Premises. 4. According to the petitioner, the post of Muthavalliship became vacant in the year 2011. For the purpose of electing a new Muthavalli, for the said Thaikkal Wakf as well as for other Wakf institutions belonging to Thangal Katchi, a General Body Meeting was held by the 7th respondent on 5.6.2011 and the petitioner's father by name S.S.Kalandar Mastan Sahib, one among the sons of late H.Sulaiman, was elected as Muthavalli of the above said Thaikkal Wakf for a period of 3 years i.e., from 5.6.2011 to 4.6.2014. By letter dated 28.7.2011, the 7th respondent had duly informed the 1st respondent Wakf Board about the election of the petitioner's father as Muthavalli and sought for approval of the same, but there was no progress in this regard. That apart, the petitioner-Executive Committee of Thaikkal Wakf was elected on 30.7.2011 by the resolution passed by the 7th respondent Thangal Katchi Jamath. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner Executive Committee and his father have taken charge of the administration of the said Thaikkal Wakf and have been administering to the best satisfaction of the Muslim Jamath Members of Kadayanallur for the past 1½ years. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner Executive Committee and his father have taken charge of the administration of the said Thaikkal Wakf and have been administering to the best satisfaction of the Muslim Jamath Members of Kadayanallur for the past 1½ years. While so, the petitioner's father died on 20.12.2012, as such, General Body Meeting was again held by the 7th respondent on 27.12.2012 and the petitioner was unanimously elected as Muthavalli of the said Thaikkal Wakf in the place of his deceased father and all the administrative affairs relating to Thaikkal Wakf were carried on by the petitioner Executive Committee continuously and uninterruptedly. 5. Continuing further, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in the mean while, the 5th respondent/Chairman of the 1st respondent Wakf Board appeared to have conducted the proceedings in his individual capacity on 20.12.2012 in SE.MU. Order no.7553/12/Aa1/T.Velli, wherein, he had appointed the 6th respondent herein as Muthavalli of the said Thaikkal Wakf for a period of three years i.e., from 23.10.2011 to 22.10.2014 subject to certain terms and conditions specified therein. The said order dated 20.12.2012 was passed by the 5th respondent, in the absence of the 1st respondent Wakf Board and without being enforced by the third respondent, that too without any notice to the petitioner herein. It is the further plea of the petitioner that though the 7th respondent by a communication dated 31.12.2012 addressed to the 1st respondent Wakf Board through the 2nd respondent has informed about the demise of the petitioner's father and the election and subsequent appointment of the petitioner as Muthavalli of the said Thaikkal Wakf and seeking for approval of the same. Finding no response, the petitioner also sent a representation dated 8.1.2013 seeking approval of the Executive Committee under his Muthavalliship to the first respondent through 2nd respondent. Whereas, the 5th respondent Chairman wrongly appointed the 6th respondent as Muthavalli of the said Thaikkal Wakf, without any approval or recognition by the 7th respondent on the basis of the report given by the 4th respondent, which is nullity, non est, without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside, learned counsel pleaded. 6. Adding further, it is submitted that neither the 5th respondent nor the respondents 2 to 4 are the competent authority to appoint the Muthavalli for the said Thaikkal Wakf. 6. Adding further, it is submitted that neither the 5th respondent nor the respondents 2 to 4 are the competent authority to appoint the Muthavalli for the said Thaikkal Wakf. Taking advantage of the order passed by the 5th respondent, the sixth respondent is attempting to cause disturbances to the day today administration of the said Thaikkal Wakf. The impugned order, appointing the 6th respondent as Muthavalli, was passed by the 5th respondent, without any election and without removing the petitioner- Executive Committee from the day today administration of the Thaikkal Wakf, that too, without notice either to the petitioner or the 7th respondent, as such, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order passed by the fifth respondent and for a consequential direction as stated supra. 7. Assailing the power of the fifth respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the fifth respondent does not have any statutory power, independent of the Wakf Board, while acting as the chairman of the same and he can only act collectively in tandem with the Wakf Board and its 12 other members. Whereas, the first respondent Wakf Board has been conferred with the exclusive power to appoint or remove a Muthavalli under Section 32 of the Wakf Act 1995 (hereinafter shortly referred to as 'Act'), hence, the respondents 2 to 5 herein do not have any jurisdiction whatsoever in the matter relating to appointment or removal of Muthavalli, superceding the jurisdiction of the first respondent Wakf Board and accordingly, he pleaded, the impugned order passed by the 5th respondent being per se illegal, without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law, is liable to be set aside. 8. Contending further, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that as the first respondent has got the power to remove a Muthavalli in accordance with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 64 of the Act, the appointment of Muthavalli and the petitioner's Executive Committee by way of election conducted by the General Body Meeting of the 7th respondent Thangal Katchi Jamath cannot be materially altered either by way of removal or by way of termination by the respondents 2 to 5 without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under law. 9. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court one more vital aspect that the petitioner's father died on 20.12.2012 and stated that on the very same day, the fifth respondent passed the impugned order, appointing the 6th respondent as muthavalli, when the application of the 7th respondent for informing the death of the petitioner's father and approval of appointment of the petitioner as Muthavalli in the place of his father, was pending consideration before the first respondent, which shows the vindicate attitude of the fifth respondent, hence, he prayed for allowing the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order. 10. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 1 to 5 on the one hand and the sixth respondent on the other hand, by denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition by the petitioner. 11. Mr.S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 submitted that the writ petition challenging the proceedings of the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board is not maintainable at all, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2012 (12) Scale 323 (Board of Wakf, West Bengal v. Anis Fatima Begam), wherein it is held that if a person is aggrieved by any proceedings of the Wakf Board, he will have to approach the Wakf Tribunal and cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Heavily relying upon the said decision, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 12. It is further submitted on the side of the respondents 1 to 5 that as per the Proforma report prepared by the then Assistant Commissioner of Waks appointed by the Government, the Rule of Succession to the office of the Muthavalli of the above wakf is selected by the Jamath according to custom, as per which, one P.S.Abdur Rahman was elected by the jamath meeting held before the wakf officials and he was also approved by the Board for a period from 8.5.1990 to 7.5.1993. According to the respondents, the previous Muthavallis of the said Wakf selected only by the Jamathars and the 7th respondent is no way connected with the above Wakf and is only a organisation/Jamath. According to the respondents, the previous Muthavallis of the said Wakf selected only by the Jamathars and the 7th respondent is no way connected with the above Wakf and is only a organisation/Jamath. Thereafter, Janab P.S.Abdur Rahman convened a general body meeting of the Jamath on 23.10.2011 with prior notice to the wakf officials and one Janab P.A.Abdul Majeed was elected as muthavalli to the above wakf for administering the wakf. By proceedings in Rc.No.7553/12/B1/Tnv dated 20.12.2012, the Chairman, Tamil nadu Wakf Board as per the powers delegated to him by the Board in Item No.27/12 dated 4.10.2012 and as reported by the officials of the Board, approved Janab P.A.Abdul Majeed as muthavalli to the above Wakf for a period of three years i.e. from 23.10.2011 to 22.10.2014. Whereas, the petitioner did not produce any evidence to show that there was a general body meeting and the petitioner was elected as muthavalli of the said Wakf. Thus, in the absence of any material proof, the impugned order passed by the fifth respondent cannot be found fault with and there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the fifth respondent, he pleaded. 13. It is the further plea of the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 that neither the writ petitioner nor his father was approved by the Board as muthavalli and prior to the selection of Janab P.A.Abdul Majeed, no petitions were received from any quarters for the approval of the Board, hence, the contention of the petitioner that he and his father have been administering the Wakf, is not correct at all. It is further contended that if the person is aggrieved by the order of the Chairman, he may file necessary petition before the appropriate Wakf Tribunals constituted as per Section 83 of the Act, on this basis, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 14. Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for the sixth respondent reiterated the same stand as put forth on the side of the respondents 1 to 5. 14. Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for the sixth respondent reiterated the same stand as put forth on the side of the respondents 1 to 5. According to him, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in 2012 (12) Scale 323 (Board of Wakf, West Bengal v. Anis Fatima Begam) and the petitioner has to approach the Wakf Tribunal and is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. It is his further contention that the petitioner Executive Committee has not been approved by the Wakf Board. Denying the averments made by the petitioner regarding constitution and formation of the 7th respondent, he submitted that as per the Wakf proforma, the rule of succession to the office of the Muthavalli of the wakf is applied by the Jamath according to custom and the 7th respondent is no way connected with the above wakf. The previous muthavallis of the aforesaid Wakf were selected only by the Jamathars of Thangal Katchi of Kadyanallur and not by Kadayanallur Thangal Katchi of West Mohallah Jamath. 16. Further denying the plea of the petitioner that the petitioner's father S.S.Kalandar Mastan Sahib was elected as Muthavalli and subsequent to his demise, the petitioner was elected as Muthavalli by the 7th respondent, he has stated that the 7th respondent has no such shadow of right or semblance of custom to appoint any such Muthavalli for Thaikkal Wakf. According to the 6th respondent, he was elected as Muthavalli for the Thaikkal Wakf by the Jamathars of Thangal katchi of Kadayanallur under the supervision of the Wakf Inspector, Tenkasi and he has been doing the day today affairs and administration of the said Wakf in his capacity as Muthavalli. 17. Adding further, learned counsel for the sixth respondent stated that the previous Muthavalli P.S.Abdur Rahman was elected as muthavalliship for the period from 8.5.1990 to 7.5.1993 at the Jamath meeting held before the wakf officials and the Board approved his election. However, he continued the office for so many years. 17. Adding further, learned counsel for the sixth respondent stated that the previous Muthavalli P.S.Abdur Rahman was elected as muthavalliship for the period from 8.5.1990 to 7.5.1993 at the Jamath meeting held before the wakf officials and the Board approved his election. However, he continued the office for so many years. Thereafter, Janab P.S.Abdur Rahman convened the general body of Jamath of Thangal Katchi of Kadayanallur on 23.10.2011 with prior notice to the wakf officials and the sixth respondent has been elected as Muthavalli for a period from 23.10.2011 to 22.10.2014 and the same was approved by the Board vide proceedings dated 20.12.2012. According to the sixth respondent, neither the petitioner nor his father managed the wakf at any point of time as alleged by them. The sixth respondent has been paying the property tax, power consumption charges and contribution to the appropriate authorities for the said Wakf and also performing Ziarat, Fathiha and Kandoori Urus Festival every year on 7th day of Islamic Calendar month Zul-Haithawas in his capacity as Muthavalli and as such, the order passed by the fifth respondent is in accordance with law and the same is deserved to be confirmed, learned counsel pleaded. 18. Again learned counsel for the sixth respondent contended that if the petitioner is really aggrieved by the same, he should first approach the Wakf Tribunal and not this Court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2010) 14 SCC 588 (Board of Wakf, West Bengal and another v. Anis Fatma Begum and another), wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the powers and jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal under Sections 83 (2) and 84 of the Act, held that the Wakf Tribunal can decide all disputes, questions or other matters relating to a wakf or wakf property. Once the property is found to be wakf property, all matter pertaining to wakf or wakf property have to be agitated before Wakf Tribunal. It has powers of a civil court and has power to grant temporary injunctions. Anyone having disputes related to wakf or wakf property has to first raise it before Wakf Tribunal. Civil Courts and High Courts should not straight away entertain the matters related to wakfs or wakf property. 19. It has powers of a civil court and has power to grant temporary injunctions. Anyone having disputes related to wakf or wakf property has to first raise it before Wakf Tribunal. Civil Courts and High Courts should not straight away entertain the matters related to wakfs or wakf property. 19. Learned counsel for the sixth respondent also placed reliance on another unreported decision of this Court in the case of Haji T.Azeezur Rahman Rowther v. the Additional Secretary, Department of Housing (in-charge of Wakfs), Chennai-9 and others in W.P.No.20958 of 2011 dated 4.4.2012, wherein, this court observed that under Section 83(5) of the Wakf Act 1995, the Tribunal has all powers of the civil court under the Code of Civl Procedure and hence it has also powers under Order 39 Rules 1, 2 and 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant temporary injunctions and enforce such injunctions. Hence, a full fledged remedy is available to any party if there is any dispute, question or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property, hence, the writ petition is not maintainable as alternative remedy is available to him. 20. Adding further, the learned counsel for the sixth respondent submitted that the petitioner has not come to this court with clean hands. He has not given correct date, on which either the petitioner's father or the petitioner was elected as muthavalliship. The petitioner has specifically stated in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition that his father was elected as Muthavalli on 5.6.2011, contradicting this stand, a letter dated 11.5.2011 issued by the petitioner's father enclosed at page 8 of the typed set of papers filed along with this writ petition states that the petitioner's father was elected as muthavalli in the general body meeting held on 8.5.2011, hence no credibility can be given to the petitioner's claim as it is full of falsihood, therefore, the order passed by the fifth respondent in appointing the sixth respondent as muthavalli is sustainable in law and the same cannot be found fault with, on this basis, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 21. 21. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not open to the respondents to say that the petitioner has wrongly approached this Court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in view of the availability of alternative remedy of appeal to the Wakf Tribunal under Section 83(1) of the Act, by relying on the decision reported in (2012) 12 Scale 323 (cited supra). The ratio laid down in the said decision is applicable only in the case, where there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Whereas, in the present case, the fifth respondent passed the order, in appointing the sixth respondent as Muthavalliship without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice, hence, there is no impediment for the petitioner to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of such contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the authority of the Supreme Court reported in (1998) 8 SCC page 1 (Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai and others), wherein it is held that the High court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. 22. 22. Contending further, the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2006 AIR SCW 5540 (M.P.Wakf Board v. Subhan Shah (D) by LRs and others) argued that when the petition filed by the petitioner seeking approval for his election as Muthavalliship, is pending before the first respondent, it is not open to the petitioner to approach the Wakf Tribunal, as the Tribunal had been constituted for the purposes mentioned in Section 83 of the Act and it is an adjudicatory body and its decision is final and binding, but then it could not usurp the jurisdiction of the Board and in the absence of any power vested in the Tribunal, the Tribunal ought to have left the said function to the Board, which is statutorily empowered therefor. The learned counsel, by referring to Section 32 of the Act, also contended that when the petitioner's representation seeking approval is pending before the first respondent, the question of approaching the Wakf Tribunal in this regard does not arise. 23. Heard both sides and perused the records. 24. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, challenging the order dated 20.12.2012 passed by the fifth respondent Chairman in appointing the sixth respondent as Muthavalli of the Thaikkal Wakf for a period of three years from 23.10.2011 to 22.10.2014. When the claim of the petitioner shows that his father was elected as Muthavalli on 5.6.2011 for a period of three years and after the death of his father on 20.12.2012, the petitioner was elected as muthavalli and he made representation dated 8.1.2013 to the first respondent seeking approval for his muthavalliship, there is no evidence in proof of the same. Whereas the letter dated 11.5.2011 produced by the petitioner in the typed set of papers would reveal that the petitioner's father was elected as muthavalli of the said Wakf in the general body meeting held on 8.5.2011. Contrary to this fact, in another communication dated nil enclosed at page 14 of the typed set, it shows that the petitioner's father was elected as muthavalli of the said Wakf on 2.6.2011, as such, there are different dates available for election of the petitioner's father as muthavalli and the petitioner is unable to put forth the specific case regarding the date on which the petitioner's father was elected as muthavalliship of the said Wakf. Whereas, the sixth respondent produced a copy of the resolution passed by Thangal Katchi Jamath of Kadayanallur dated 23.10.2011 in the form of typed set dated 22.1.2014. The reading of the same would disclose that Janab P.S.Abdur Rahman convened the general body of the Jamath of Thangal Katchi of Kadayanallur on 23.10.2011 and the sixth respondent was elected as muthavalli of the said Wakf. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to accept the claim of the petitioner. 25. Secondly, it is well settled law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court that as per Section 83(5) of the Act, the Tribunal has got all powers of the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure and it has also powers under Order 39 Rules 1,2 and 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant temporary injunctions and enforce such injunctions and hence a full fledged remedy is always available to the petitioner in the case of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property. Therefore, in my considered view, the petitioner ought not to have approached this Court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, hence, this Court is unable to entertain the prayer sought for in this writ petition. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the first bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2005-1-LW 676 (Salam Khan v. the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board rep. by its Chairman and others), while dealing with an identical issue, held that any dispute, question or other matters whatsoever and in whatever manner which arises relating to a Wakf or Wakf property can be decided by the Wakf Tribunal. In this context, it is appropriate to extract paras 6 to 8 of the said decision, which reads as follows: "6.Thus, the Wakf Tribunal can decide all disputes, questions or other matters relating to a Wakf or Wakf property. The words "any dispute, question or other mattes relating to a wakf or wakf property" are, in our opinion, words of very wide connotation. Any dispute, question or other matters whatsoever and in whatever manner, which arises relating to a wakf or wakf property can be decided by the wakf Tribunal. The words "any dispute, question or other mattes relating to a wakf or wakf property" are, in our opinion, words of very wide connotation. Any dispute, question or other matters whatsoever and in whatever manner, which arises relating to a wakf or wakf property can be decided by the wakf Tribunal. The word 'Wakf' has been defined in section 3(r) of the Wakf Act, 1995 and hence once the property is found to be a wakf property as defined in section 3(r), then any dispute, question or other matter relating to it should be agitated before the Wakf Tribunal. It is not proper for this court to straight away entertain writ petitions relating to wakf or wakf property when there is a special Tribunal constituted for this purpose. 7. No doubt, alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the filing of writ petitions, but at the same time, it is well settled that writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and when there is an alternative remedy, ordinarily a party must resort to that remedy first before approaching this Court. Entertaining writ petitions straight away without insisting that a party should first avail of the alternative remedy is an over liberal approach which has caused immense difficulties to the High courts in the country because they have added to the huge arrears. The courts have already become overburdened by this over liberal approach instead of following the settled legal principle that a writ petition should ordinarily be dismissed if there is an alternative remedy. The High courts in India are already tottering and reeling under the burden of massive arrears which have flooded the dockets of the court and such kind of over liberal approach has only multiplied this problem manifold. If this approach is further continued a time will surly come when the High Courts will find it impossible to function. All this has happened because unfortunately some courts have departed from well settled legal principles. 8. Under Section 83(5) of the Wakf Act, 1995 the Tribunal has all powers of the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure and hence it has also powers under Order 39 Rules 1, 2 and 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant temporary injunctions and enforce such injunctions. 8. Under Section 83(5) of the Wakf Act, 1995 the Tribunal has all powers of the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure and hence it has also powers under Order 39 Rules 1, 2 and 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant temporary injunctions and enforce such injunctions. Hence, a full fledged remedy is available to any party if there is any dispute, question or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property." The ratio laid down in the above decision clearly shows that the party should first approach the Wakf Tribunal, in respect of any dispute, question or the matters relating to wakf or wakf property. In the present case, the petitioner, instead of approaching the Wakf Tribunal, has straight away come to this Court by filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the light of the observation of the full bench of this Court, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as there is an alternative remedy available to him. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that when the petitioner's application seeking approval of his muthavalliship is pending consideration before the first respondent, the Tribunal will not have the power to deal with the same, is concerned, as held above, the petitioner has got an effective remedy, hence, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contention. Moreover, as mentioned above, the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court have repeatedly held that a writ petition should not ordinarily be entertained, if there is an alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has got an alternative and effective remedy under Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act 1995, hence, I am of the view that this present writ petition is not maintainable. 26. Thirdly, at this stage, by placing reliance on Section 25 of the Act, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that unless the second respondent Chief Executive Officer considers the order passed by the fifth respondent, the impugned order cannot be legally implemented. 26. Thirdly, at this stage, by placing reliance on Section 25 of the Act, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that unless the second respondent Chief Executive Officer considers the order passed by the fifth respondent, the impugned order cannot be legally implemented. But this Court is not inclined to accept the same for the reason that the fifth respondent has rightly passed the order, appointing the sixth respondent as muthavalliship, when the petitioner was unable to establish his claim that his father was elected on 5.6.2011 and after his father's death on 20.12.2012, he was elected as muthavalli of the said Wakf. By banking on Section-26 of the Waqf Act which runs to the effect that if the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) considers that any resolution or order passed by the Board, if implemented, is likely to cause financial loss to the Board or to the Waqf concerned, he may, before implementing such order or resolution, place the matter before the Board for its re-consideration, and if such order or resolution is not confirmed by a majority of vote of the members present, the CEO can refer the matter to the State Government along with his objections to the order or resolution, and the decision of the State Government thereon shall be final, learned counsel would submit that, in the present case, the CEO has not exercised his power under Section-26, therefore, a direction needs to be issued to him to exercise his power. This argument also cannot help the petitioner since the 2nd respondent has not even placed the matter before the Board for re-consideration. Therefore, no direction can be issued to him as there is no prayer made by the petitioner in that regard. More over, the petitioner has come to this Court with unclean hands by making self-contradictory statements. In paragraph No.4 of the affidavit, he claims that his father was elected as the Muthavalli of the Thaikkal Wakf from 05.06.2011 onwards till 04.06.2014 for a period of 3 years. Whereas, in the typed set of papers filed by the petitioner, in the document at page No.14, it is shown that the petitioner’s father was elected as Muthawalli on 02.06.2011. Again, the letter dated 11.05.2011 filed by the petitioner in the typed-set at page No.8 suggests that the petitioner’s father was elected as Muthawalli in the General Body Meeting held on 08.05.2011. Again, the letter dated 11.05.2011 filed by the petitioner in the typed-set at page No.8 suggests that the petitioner’s father was elected as Muthawalli in the General Body Meeting held on 08.05.2011. If that be so, it is common knowledge that a person who was elected as Muthawalli on 08.05.2011 could not have been re-elected either on 02.06.2011 or again on 05.06.2011 for a period of three years. This self-contradicting stand of the petitioner clearly shows that his case and claim for election to the post of Muthawalli is nothing but an after-thought. Therefore, he is not entitled to get any relief under equity jurisdiction. 27. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.