ORDER : N. ANAND VENKATESH, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the Notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 03.06.205 and for a consequential direction restraining the Wakf Board from taking over direct management of the Wakf. 2. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 04.07.2025, this Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel mainly raised two grounds. First ground is that, such notification has been issued without affording opportunity to the petitioner. The second ground is that the notification was issued in the name of the Chief Administrative Officer of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, who lacks jurisdiction since such power is vested only with the Chief Executive Officer under Section 26 of the Wakf Act 1995. 3. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing today, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Wakf Board brought to the notice of this Court, the resolution that was passed by the Wakf Board dated 20.05.2025. On going through the same, it is clear that opportunity was in fact was given to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also to the petitioner, who has given his explanation. The first ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as if no opportunity was given is unsustainable. 4. The next ground touches upon the jurisdiction of the notification issued in the name of the Chief Executive Officer. For this purpose, this Court must take into consideration Section 27 of the Act, which talks about delegation of powers by the Board. It is brought to the notice of this Court that such delegation of powers has been given in favour of the Chief Administrative Officer under G.O.Ms.No.62 dated 09.08.2024. Hence, the second ground that has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has also been sufficiently answered by the Wakf Board. 5. The other grounds that were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be gone into in the present writ petition since the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy before the Wakf Tribunal. Hence, the second ground that has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has also been sufficiently answered by the Wakf Board. 5. The other grounds that were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be gone into in the present writ petition since the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy before the Wakf Tribunal. The legal grounds that were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, touching upon the scope of Section 69 of the Act and the other grounds raised on merits cannot be considered by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all the grounds before the Tribunal and work out his remedy in the manner known to law. The Tribunal shall deal with the case on merits without putting the ground of delay against the petitioner. 7. This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.