Writ Petition Filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India – No Violation of Fundamental Rights – Availability of Alternative Remedy – Dismissal of Petition – Two Weeks’ Protection Against Adverse Order.

The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, holding: No violation of fundamental rights or principles of natural justice (Para 8). The CEO’s authority to issue the Show Cause Notice was not under challenge (Para 8). Effective and efficacious remedies were available to the Petitioners (Para 8). Protection was granted for two weeks against the execution of any adverse order (Para 11).

A writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable when an alternative remedy exists unless there is a violation of fundamental rights, principles of natural justice, or jurisdictional errors (Para 8).

The Writ Petition was dismissed, keeping all contentions open for future proceedings and providing two weeks’ protection against any adverse order.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Constitution of India (COI) – Article 226 – Extraordinary Writ Jurisdiction.

2. Waqf Act, 1995 – Sections 51, 52, 52-A, and 56 – Provisions Relating to Recovery and Transfer of Waqf Property.

Subjects:

Writ Jurisdiction – Show Cause Notice – Waqf Property – Alternative Remedy – Principles of Natural Justice – Maintainability of Petition.

Nature of Litigation: The Petitioners challenged the Show Cause Notice dated 15th January 2024, issued by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Maharashtra State Board of Waqfs, Aurangabad, calling upon the Petitioners to show cause why criminal action should not be initiated for recovery of Waqf property.

Relief Sought: Petitioners sought quashing of the Show Cause Notice and stay on further proceedings.

Reason for Filing the Case: Petitioners alleged that the CEO could not act as both litigant and judge in the same matter and that the notice was issued without jurisdiction.

Prior Decisions: By Order dated 5th August 2024, the Court stayed the operation of the Show Cause Notice and called for replies on maintainability and merits.

Issues:

a) Whether the Show Cause Notice violated fundamental rights or principles of natural justice. b) Whether the CEO had jurisdiction to issue the notice. c) Whether the availability of an alternative remedy barred the maintainability of the Writ Petition.

Submissions/Arguments:

Petitioners:

• Contended that the CEO’s dual role compromised impartiality.

• Argued the notice lacked jurisdiction and contravened statutory provisions.

Respondents:

• Argued that the Petitioners had an effective alternative remedy.

• Emphasized that the show-cause stage did not amount to a final order.