ORDER : T.MADHAVI DEVI, J. In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in appointing the respondent No.3 as Mutawalli of Jama Masjid, A.C.Guards, bearing H.No.10-1-1181, vide proceedings dated 04.05.2023 and also Graveyard bearing H.No.6-2-973, situated at Khairatabad, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad, vide proceedings dated 01.05.2023, without following regulation 5(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Waqf Managing Committee (Constitutions, Functions and Duties) Regulation, 2009 as illegal and arbitrary and as in violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the subject institution bearing house No.10-1- 1181, is situated at A.C.Guards, Hyderabad and the petitioner and others of the Towliath Committee were taking care of the same for more than 55 years. It is submitted that the tenure of the said committee was extended from time to time and that the last proceedings for extension of tenure dates were 25.05.2017 and 30.05.2017, respectively. It is stated that since the tenure of the said committee was to expire on 24.05.2020 and due to the Covid-19 lockdown, the tenure was not extended immediately and the petitioner, through the office of the Member of Legislative Assembly, approached the respondent No.2 and prayed for an extension of the tenure of his committee. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 accepted the same and promised to issue proceedings, but, instead, the impugned proceedings dated 04.05.2023 were issued and the petitioner and others were prevented from discharging their duties. It is submitted that in spite of said proceedings, the petitioner and his committee alone are discharging their functions and it is stated that the impugned proceedings dated 04.05.2023 were issued by the respondent No.2, which is ultra vires and nonest in the eyes of law for the gross violation of the requirements for supersession of the committee and that the provisions of Section 67 of the Waqf Act, 1995, has not been followed. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while supporting the contentions raised in the writ affidavit, has drawn the attention of this Court to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Waqf Managing Committee (Constitutions, Functions and Duties) Regulation, 2009 and particularly Rule 5(2) thereof, to submit that in the absence of a unanimous panel the managing committee of the Waqf/Waqf institution may be constituted through election from amongst the Mussalies of the Wakf/Wakf institution conducted under the supervision of the Inspector Auditor of the Board. He further submitted that even if it is considered that there was an application from the respondent No.3 committee, then there being two applications, there should have been elections and since the said procedure has not been followed, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the existing managing committee also ought to have been given a notice and since such a procedure was not followed, it is also in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Telangana State Waqf Board Vs. M/s.Solithro Private Limited in W.A.No.1432 of 2016 and batch, to submit that having an alternative remedy itself is not a bar in entertaining the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3, however, relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the respondent No.3 is the managing committee constituted vide proceedings dated 04.05.2023, after the expiry of the tenure of the committee consisting of the petitioner and others, dated 24.05.2020 and thereafter, it is the respondent No.3 who was looking after the affairs of the Waqf institutions, as is evident from the reports of the Inspector Auditor, dated 06.09.2021 and 15.09.2022. It is submitted that it is after considering the representation of the respondent No.3 and others that they were appointed as a managing committee. He also denied that the petitioner and others had made any representation and stated that representation was made by the local Member of the Legislative Assembly, which cannot be treated as an application of the petitioner. It is submitted that it is after considering the representation of the respondent No.3 and others that they were appointed as a managing committee. He also denied that the petitioner and others had made any representation and stated that representation was made by the local Member of the Legislative Assembly, which cannot be treated as an application of the petitioner. He also submitted that the alleged representation of the petitioner dated 15.06.2020, is a created document and even if it is taken to be true and correct, it contains the names of two persons who were dead i.e., one person was dead as on the date of representation itself and the second person has also died subsequently and therefore, that application also cannot be taken into consideration. 6. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has also taken a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition, He submitted that the dispute raised by the petitioner needs verification of the facts and therefore, the same cannot be decided in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that the petitioner has to approach the Waqf Tribunal and in support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.827 of 2024, dated 12.02.2025, wherein after considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai , reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 , it was held that the Court of first instance would be the Waqf Tribunal and that the High Court and the Civil Court should not straightaway entertain the petition. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.20048 of 2023, dated 21.03.2024 to this effect, which has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.827 of 2024. 7. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rashid Wali Beg Vs. Farid Pindari and Others , reported in (2022) 4 SCC 414 , wherein the issue as to whether the property was Waqf property has to be decided by the proper forum i.e., Waqf Tribunal and not the Civil or the High Court. 8. Farid Pindari and Others , reported in (2022) 4 SCC 414 , wherein the issue as to whether the property was Waqf property has to be decided by the proper forum i.e., Waqf Tribunal and not the Civil or the High Court. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for the Waqf Board placed reliance upon the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 and submitted that the respondent No.2 had issued earlier proceedings, appointing the petitioner and others as the managing committee and that as their term expired on 24.05.2020, the respondent No.3 has submitted a representation on 15.06.2020 to regularize their committee under his Presidentship and in the meantime, the petitioner has submitted a representation to regularize their committee and thereafter on 01.06.2021, a representation was received from the respondent No.3 to constitute the managing committee under his Presidentship and ten others and both the representations were placed before the Board in its Meeting and after considering the antecedents of both the proposed committee members, the Board has approved the representation of Abdul Rehman Bin Mahmood and accordingly, the proceedings dated 04.05.2023 and 01.06.2023 were issued for a period of three years. 9. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the constitution of the Managing Committee of the Waqf is governed by the Telangana Waqf Managing Committee (Constitutions, Functions and Duties) Regulation, 2009 and Rule 5 thereof reads as under: 5. Method of Constitution of Managing Committee: The Managing Committee for a Wakf/Wakf Institution may be constituted in the following manner: (i) By approving the panel unanimously selected by the Mussalies and certified by the Inspector Auditor of the Board. (ii) In the absence of unanimous panel through election from among the mussalies of the Wakf/Wakf Institution conducted under the control and supervision of Inspector Auditor of the Board. 10. From a literal reading of the above, it is noticed that the Waqf institution may be constituted by the Waqf Board by approving the panel unanimously or through elections, where the unanimous panel cannot be constituted. As admitted by the Waqf Board, in its counter affidavit, that both the representations were considered and respondent No.3 was chosen, it is clearly not in accordance with the provisions of the regulations. As admitted by the Waqf Board, in its counter affidavit, that both the representations were considered and respondent No.3 was chosen, it is clearly not in accordance with the provisions of the regulations. When there are more than one application, the Board ought to have conducted elections amongst the Mussalis of the Waqf for Waqf institution under the control and supervision of the Inspector Auditor of the Waqf Board. Though it is stated that the tenure of the present body is going to end in a few months and therefore, a direction may be given for the constitution of a committee through elections, this Court finds that a committee which is not constituted in accordance with the regulations cannot be allowed to continue. The objections of the respondents No.3 about the maintainability of the writ petition are also not sustainable, as the committee has not been constituted in accordance with regulations and there is no verification of facts in this regard. Further, this Court is of the opinion that only in such of the cases where the issue of the verification of facts is required, the Waqf Tribunal would have the jurisdiction. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 are not applicable to the case on hand. 11. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondent No.2 to conduct the elections to the Waqf institution and thereafter appoint the Muthawali in accordance with the above regulation. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.