2022 (11) TMI 1469 - HC - Indian Laws

Permission for construction of a new Mosque there by contributing for the same along with his relatives - Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995 - HELD THAT - Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate from the facts of this case as to how it would fall under any of the exceptional circumstances mentioned therein or that the Petitioner has been impeded from canvassing what is sought to be agitated in this Writ Petition in an application under Section 83 of the Act, and the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition is also bereft of any details in that regard. This Court is not inclined to delve into the merits of the controversy involved in this case which touches upon disputed questions of fact for effectual and complete adjudication of the matter. The Writ Petition, which cannot be entertained, is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Permission for construction of a new Mosque at a dilapidated site.
2. Rejection of permission by the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board.
3. Filing of Writ Petition instead of resorting to the Waqf Tribunal.
4. Legal position regarding the exercise of discretionary powers under writ jurisdiction.
5. Failure to demonstrate exceptional circumstances for bypassing statutory remedies.
6. Dismissal of the Writ Petition due to disputed questions of fact.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought permission for constructing a new Mosque at a dilapidated site owned by Khabristhan Waqf. The representation was made to the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, which rejected the request through an order, leading to the filing of the Writ Petition challenging the rejection.

2. The rejection of permission by the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board was a key issue in the case. The petitioner contended that the rejection was unjust, prompting the legal challenge through the Writ Petition.

3. The court highlighted that instead of approaching the Waqf Tribunal as provided under Section 83 of the Waqf Act, the petitioner directly filed the Writ Petition without a valid explanation for bypassing the statutory remedy, raising concerns about the appropriate legal recourse taken.

4. The judgment extensively quoted legal precedents regarding the exercise of discretionary powers under writ jurisdiction, emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory remedies before resorting to writ petitions. The court reiterated that writ jurisdiction should not be used to circumvent established procedures unless exceptional circumstances exist.

5. The court observed that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would warrant bypassing the statutory remedy provided under the Waqf Act. The absence of details in the affidavit supporting the Writ Petition further weakened the petitioner's case for not availing the alternative legal recourse.

6. Due to the presence of disputed questions of fact and the lack of exceptional circumstances justifying the bypassing of statutory remedies, the court decided not to delve into the merits of the case. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed, emphasizing the importance of following established legal procedures and exhausting statutory remedies before approaching the court.