[2025:RJ-JP:28259] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7539/2024 Syed Ziauddin Alias Zia Miyan S/o Late Shri Sayed Zainul Abedin Alias Mehmood Miyan, Aged About 42 Years, Mutawalli And Sajjadanashin Of Dargah Maulana Ziauddin Sahab Outside Chardarwaja, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Rajasthan Board Of Muslim Waqfs, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Daga For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/07/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the Rajasthan Board of Muslim Waqfs (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent-Board”) by which the management of the properties of Dargah Mollana Jiyauddin Saheb situated outside Char Diwari, Jaipur has been taken over by the Chief Executive Officer and the aforesaid order has been made effective till a decision for management of the aforementioned Dargah is taken in the next meeting of the Board. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order has been passed by the Chief Executive Officer, who is not competent and was not having any jurisdiction to pass such an order and that the same is in contravention of Section 27 of the United Waqf [2025:RJ-JP:28259] (2 of 4) [CW-7539/2024] Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1995”). Learned counsel submits that as per custom and usage prevailing since time immemorial, the earlier Mutawalli Mollana Jiyauddin Saheb can nominate the next Mutawalli by executing a will and in the instant case also, a will has been executed in favour of the petitioner, hence, the respondent did not have any power to take over the control of the management of the aforesaid Dargah. Learned counsel submits that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this petition against the order impugned under its inherent jurisdiction contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, irrespective of the fact that there is a provision under Section 83 of the Act of 1995 to approach the Waqf Tribunal. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs Versus Shaikh Yusuf Bhai Chawla & Others while deciding Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.31288-31290/2011. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the order impugned is appellable before the Waqf Tribunal under Section 83(2) of the Act of 1995. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach the Wakf Tribunal for redressal of his grievances and he cannot be allowed to bypass the jurisdiction of the said authority, hence, this writ petition is liable to be rejected on this count alone. 4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the [2025:RJ-JP:28259] (3 of 4) [CW-7539/2024] Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Board of Wakf, West Bengal Versus Anis Fatma Begum and Anr. reported in 2011 (1) WLN 1 (SC). 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the impugned order dated 02.04.2024 indicates that after the death of the earlier Mutawalli, the management of Dargah Mollana Jiyauddin Saheb has been taken under control by the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent-Board by passing the order impugned. 7. The petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order on several counts. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, a complete mechanism has been provided under Section 83 of the Act of 1995. The petitioner is not remediless and he has the liberty to approach the Tribunal for redressal of his grievances by way of filing appropriate application/appeal. 9. It is a settled proposition of law that whenever an alternative statutory remedy is available to a person, he cannot be allowed to bye-pass the jurisdiction of the said authority. 10. Even the Hon’ble Apex Court in a similar situation has taken such a view in the case of Anis Fatma Begum (supra). Hence, under these circumstances, this Court finds no valid reason to take a different view. 11. On this count alone, the writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal by way of filing an application/appeal challenging the validity of the order dated 02.04.2024. [2025:RJ-JP:28259] (4 of 4) [CW-7539/2024] 12. In case, the petitioner files such application/appeal before the Tribunal within a period of one month from today, it is expected from the Tribunal to decide the same expeditiously as early as possible preferably within a period of two months thereafter. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/9