ORDER The writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondent relating to administration of Hazarth Muhamed Gani Sahib Durgah Wakf by order passed in Che.Mu.Aanai No. 7028/08/AAS/Pudukai dated 17.04.2015 and to quash the same. 2. The case of petitioner is that she is the hereditary Muthavalli of Hazarath Muhamed Gani Sahib Avullia Durgah, Hazarath Syed Mohamed Avullia Durgah & Vayalogam Juma Pallivasal. The said wakf is registered with the respondent namely the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board. The petitioner as a hereditary Muthavalli is administering the wakfs and its properties without any demure. Whileso, the petitioner received a notice from the respondent dated 12.11.2012 in Na.Ka.No.7028/08/Pudukai/AA5 for enquiry for appointment of new committee on 28.11.2012 at 10.30 am. The said notice was also sent to one S.Noor Muhamed, S.Mohamed Sultan, K.Kavudeen. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner appeared before the respondent and gave her explanation stating that the rule of succession for Muthawalliship for Hazarath Syed Mohamed Gani Avullia Durgah is hereditary in nature and no committee can be appointed for administration of the Durgah as per the pro-forma of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board. Thereafter, the petitioner received another notice dated 12.08.2013 in Na.Ka.No.7028/08/AA5/Pudukai from the respondent in respect of appointment of new administration for Hazarath Syed Mohamed Gani Avullia Durgah, fixing the enquiry date as 21.08.2013. On that day, the petitioner appeared before the respondent and placed all the records relating to the Durgah. Thereafter, the petitioner has not heard anything from the respondent. Whileso, all of a sudden, the petitioner received another notice from the respondent calling upon her for enquiry at 03.00 p.m on 03.03.2015 by letter dated 19.02.2015. The said notice was issued pursuant to an order passed in W.P.(MD).No.13084 of 2011 dated 12.02.2014 and W.P.(MD).No.15923 of 2014 dated 24.09.2014. The petitioner appeared before the respondent and placed all the records relating to the Durgah Wakf and the respondent assured that no new committee will be appointed for the Hazarath Syed Mohamed Gani Avullia Durgah. Whileso, to the shock and surprise, the petitioner came to know that the respondent formed a committee appointing 16 persons as committee members and appointed one A.Mohamed Sadih as President of the Hazarath Muhamed Gani Sahib Avullia Durgah. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Whileso, to the shock and surprise, the petitioner came to know that the respondent formed a committee appointing 16 persons as committee members and appointed one A.Mohamed Sadih as President of the Hazarath Muhamed Gani Sahib Avullia Durgah. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995 and submitted that no committee can be appointed for administration of Durga. Since the petitioner Wakf is administering the wakfs and its properties, the respondent cannot appoint a committee for administration. The learned counsel for the petitioner further invited the attention of the Court to Section 64(3) of the Wakf Act and submitted that unless a decision was taken by the majority of not less than 2/3 members of the Board, no action can be taken. But, in the instant case, no such decision was taken. Therefore, in all the grounds, the impugned order dated 17.04.2015 appointing 16 persons as committee members and one Mr. A.Mohamed Sadih as President of the Hazarath Muhamed Gani Sahib Avullia Durgah has to be quashed. 4. But the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it is incorrect to state that the Wakf Board cannot appoint a committee for administering the petitioner Wakf. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that it is also incorrect to state that the petitioner is the hereditary Muthavalli of the petitioner Wakf. Further, he has also submitted that on 03.03.2015, a resolution was passed by 16 members, majority of not less than 2/3 members of the Board and therefore, a committee can be appointed to administer the petitioner Wakf. But this resolution was not challenged by the petitioner. 5. That apart, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as against the impugned order, the petitioner is having an alternative remedy under Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act before the Wakf Tribunal. Since the petitioner is having an alternative remedy, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. But the learned counsel for the petitioner replied that if the dispute is with regard to the wakf property, then only the petitioner can seek remedy under Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act before the Wakf Tribunal. Since the petitioner is having an alternative remedy, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. But the learned counsel for the petitioner replied that if the dispute is with regard to the wakf property, then only the petitioner can seek remedy under Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act before the Wakf Tribunal. In the instant case, the dispute is with regard to the administration of the petitioner Wakf. Therefore, there is no need to approach the Wakf Tribunal. Hence, the present writ petition is very well maintainable. 7. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a judgment reported in 2010 (2) CWC 846 (Dr. M. Sahul Hameed Vs The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board and others), giving a fitting answer for this issue. The relevant passage from the said judgment is as follows: “8. Even if the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted that Section 83(2) cannot be applicable, a reference to Section 6(1) of Act which reads as follows: “6. Disputes regarding Wakfs :- (i) if any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in the list of Wakfs is Wakf property or not or whether a Wakf specified in such list is a Shia Wakf or Sunni Wakf, the Board or the mutawalli of the Wakf or any person interested therein may institute a Suit in a Tribunal for the decision of the question and the decision of the Tribunal in respect of such matter shall be final. Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the Tribunal after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of Wakfs.” includes any question relating to wakf property under the Wakf Act. The appointment of Ad hoc committee can definitely be said to be relating to the Wakf property and there can be no doubt about that. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the restricted meaning has to be given for the purpose of deciding about the Wakf, in our considered opinion, cannot be accepted at all. The appointment of Ad hoc committee can definitely be said to be relating to the Wakf property and there can be no doubt about that. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the restricted meaning has to be given for the purpose of deciding about the Wakf, in our considered opinion, cannot be accepted at all. Moreover, in the facts of the present case, when specific point is raised about the legality of the constitution of Ad hoc Committee including certain persons who are stated to be undesirable, certainly, it is the Wakf Tribunal, which is the Appropriate Authority to decide the issue as per the Wakf Act on appreciation of the entire facts.” 8. The dictum laid down in this case is a question relating to the administration of the Wakf property by a committee constituting of 16 members. Therefore, certainly, the Wakf Tribunal is appropriate to decide the issue. In view of the decision laid down in the above judgment, I am of the opinion that for challenging the appointment of the committee by the respondent to administer the petitioner wakf, the petitioner can seek her remedy only before the Wakf Tribunal, under Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act, not by way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. R. SUBBIAH, J. 9. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Wakf Tribunal as against the impugned order passed by the respondent, dated 17.04.2015. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.