MOHAMMED MUZZAMIL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these writ petitions the essential dispute relates to the Notification dated 08.10.2021whereby the process for electing the Chairman of the Board has commenced and that the election is scheduled to be held tomorrow ie., 17.11.2021 forenoon.

(2.) The learned Advocate General appearing for the State and learned Sr. Panel Counsel representing the Wakf Board vehemently oppose the writ petitions on the ground of availability of alternate and equally efficacious remedy, post election; they also contend that ordinarily the Writ Courts do not grant indulgence once the election process commences.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as in terms of Sec.83 of Wakf Act 1995 as amended in 2013, a Tribunal has been constituted; learned AG is more than justified in pointing out that sub-sections (1) and (2) of Sec.83 of the Act are couched in a very wide language and the dispute of the kind do fit into their four corners; these provisions employ the terms 'determination of any dispute' and 'any person aggrieved' as their building blocks. Thus the petitioners have an alternate and equally efficacious remedy.