JUDGMENT : Mohammed Nias C.P. J. This Original petition is filed by Punnol Mahal Muslim Jamath Committee, Punnol, represented by its President, challenging Ext.P10 order passed by the Waqf Board. The respondents herein had preferred O.P. No. 77 of 2022 before the Waqf. with a prayer to conduct an investigation on the basis of the audit report of the year 2014-2015 pertaining to a committee and also to take action against the 2nd and 3rd respondents and others who were in charge and who have committed financial manipulation and irregularities. There is also a prayer to appoint an executive officer for the above Waqf to protect its properties. 2. The Waqf Board had earlier allowed the said application by Ext. P7 order appointing an executive officer which was challenged before this Court in O.P. Waqf No. 35 of 2022. By judgment dated 6th December 2022, the said order was set aside, and the Board was directed to consider the application for appointment of the Executive Officer afresh after hearing both sides. After consideration as directed by this Court, the Board passed Ext. P10 order on 15th March 2023, again appointing an Executive Officer. It is the said order that is challenged in the above OP Waqf. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. T.P. Sajid argues that Ext. P10 order is not in consonance with the directions issued by this Court in Ext. P9 judgment. He also argues that though two members of the Waqf Board dissented with the order of the majority, their dissent order is not incorporated in Ext. P10 order, and he had obtained the same and is produced as Ext. P11. In such circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that though Ext. P10 order can be challenged before the Tribunal, this Court may entertain the original petition and consider the matter on merits. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the records, we are not inclined to consider the correctness of Ext. P10 order in this Original petition as the petitioner has got an alternate and efficacious remedy before the Waqf Tribunal, which can consider all the questions urged on behalf of the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Board ought to have incorporated the order of dissent in Ext. P10 order itself, and the same was necessary for showing that Ext. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Board ought to have incorporated the order of dissent in Ext. P10 order itself, and the same was necessary for showing that Ext. P10 order is illegal. It is to be seen that there is no such requirement mentioned anywhere in the Waqf Act or Rules, as Section 17 of the Waqf Act only says that all questions which come before any meeting of the Board shall be decided by the majority of votes of the members present, and in the case of equality of votes, the Chairperson or, in his absence, any other person presiding shall have a second or casting vote. Though we do not find any specific provision in the Act or Rules indicating the requirement for incorporating the dissenting opinion in the order of the Board itself, it is ideal that the Board incorporates/extracts the dissenting order of the members as well in its order as the same will be useful for the Tribunal or any other forum when it considers the legality of the order passed by the Waqf Board. Subject to the above, this Original Petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy against Ext. P10 order of the Waqf Board. Needless to say that the petitioner will be free to urge all contentions available to them before the Tribunal, including for appropriate interim orders.