Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Farooq Yasin Sayyad Inamdar and Mohammed Amin Sayyad, filed a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging a show-cause notice dated 15 January 2024 issued by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Maharashtra State Board of Waqfs. The notice called upon them to show cause why criminal action should not be initiated to recover Waqf property under Sections 52 and 52-A of the Waqf Act, 1995. The petitioners argued that the CEO could not be a litigant and a judge in his own cause. The court had earlier granted ad-interim relief staying the notice. The respondent No.4, the complainant before the Waqf Board, filed a reply affidavit contending that the petitioners had illegally transferred Waqf property without the Board's sanction, and that the proceedings were maintainable. The respondent relied on the judgment in Shreyas Infrastructures v. State of Maharashtra, which enumerated exceptions for entertaining a writ petition despite an alternate remedy: enforcement of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, proceedings without jurisdiction, or challenge to vires of the Act. The court heard all parties and held that the challenge was only to a show-cause notice, and none of the exceptions applied. The petitioners had an effective alternate remedy to appear before the CEO and, if aggrieved, to file an appeal or revision. The court dismissed the writ petition, keeping all contentions open, and directed that if an adverse order is passed, it shall not be given effect to for two weeks to allow the petitioners to challenge it.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Alternate Remedy - Show Cause Notice - Article 226 of Constitution of India - Waqf Act, 1995, Sections 52, 52-A - The petitioners challenged a show-cause notice issued by the CEO of the Waqf Board. The court held that since the challenge was only to a show-cause notice, there was no violation of fundamental rights, principles of natural justice, or lack of jurisdiction, and the vires of the Act was not challenged. Therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable as an alternate remedy was available. (Paras 7-8) B) Waqf Law - Show Cause Notice - Alternate Remedy - Sections 52, 52-A of Waqf Act, 1995 - The CEO issued a show-cause notice calling upon the petitioners to show cause why criminal action should not be initiated to recover Waqf property. The court observed that the petitioners could appear before the CEO and raise their objections, and if an adverse order is passed, they have the remedy of appeal/revision. Hence, the petition was dismissed. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition challenging a show-cause notice issued under Sections 52 and 52-A of the Waqf Act, 1995 is maintainable when an alternate remedy is available and none of the exceptions for entertaining a writ petition are attracted.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The court clarified that it has not heard the petition on merits, and all contentions are kept open. If an adverse order is passed by the Board, it shall not be given effect to for a period of two weeks to enable the petitioners to assail it before an appropriate forum.
Law Points
- Alternate remedy
- Maintainability of writ petition
- Show cause notice
- Waqf Act
- 1995
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
