- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35135-DB WA No. 671 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 671 OF 2025 (GM-WAKF) BETWEEN: MR. MOHAMMED SADATHULLA, S/O MOHAMMED SANAULLA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NOORAIN NAUSHEEN MANSION, 4TH CROSS, TIPPU NAGARA, SHIVAMOGA, KARNATAKA-577 205. …APPELLANT (BY SRI VIVEK S REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI CHAND PASHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DIVISION, BENGALURU AND ELECTORAL REGISTRATION, OFFICER FOR ELECTION OF KARNATAKA, STATE BOARD OF WAQF, 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027. 2. KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQAF, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 6, CUNNIGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052. REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 3. SRI SYED MUHAMMAD ALI AL HUSSAINI, S/O SYED SHAH KHUSRO HUSSAINI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NEAR KBN DARGAH, KALABURAGI TOWN, Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35135-DB WA No. 671 of 2025 KARNATAKA 585 104. 4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. 5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINORITY WELFARE AND WAKFS, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P USMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI JAYAKUMAR.S PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI MOHMOOD PATEL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-3; SRI K SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA AND MS. ANISHKA VAISHNAV, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 & 5) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04/04/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.29380/2024 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR b) PASS ANY OTHER ORDER. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed this appeal, impugning an order dated 04.04.2025 [impugned order], passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 30997/2024 C/W Writ Petition No. 29380/ 2024 [GM-WAKF]. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35135-DB WA No. 671 of 2025 2. The appellant had filed the Writ Petition No.29380/2024, impugning the Revised Final Electoral Roll dated 22.10.2024 and the inclusion of the name of respondent No. 3, [the contesting respondent] in the Electoral Roll. 3. The appellant – the writ petitioner in the writ petition – claims that the inclusion of the name of respondent No.3 in the said Revised Final Electoral Roll is contrary to Rule 12 of the Karnataka Waqf Rules, 2017 [the Rules]. The said writ petition was not entertained on the ground that the appellant has an efficacious remedy of an appeal under Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995 [the Act]. 4. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Vivek S. Reddy appearing for appellant contended that inclusion of the name of respondent no.3 in the final electoral roll was pursuant to the order dated 11.09.2024, which is contrary to an order dated 15.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.27649/2024 C/W Writ Petition 26367/2024 [GM-WAKF]. 5. Mr. Reddy submits that notwithstanding the order dated 11.09.2024, the name of the contesting respondent would not have - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35135-DB WA No. 671 of 2025 been included in the Final Electoral Roll for want of following the procedures under Rule 12 of the Rules. He also submits that existence of an alternate remedy is not a bar to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Although, the appellant had challenged the Revised Electoral Roll, it does not appear that the order dated 11.09.2024, which forms the basis on which the name of respondent No.3 was entered into the Revised Electoral Roll was the subject matter of the challenge in the writ petition. Mr Reddy contends that it was not necessary to assail the said order as the appellant’s challenge to the inclusion of respondent no.3’s name is, essentially, on the ground that the mandatory declaration as required in terms of Rule 12 was not made. 7. The learned Advocate General appearing for respondents (State) submits that the appellant has an equally efficacious remedy under Section 83 of the Act. He also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Board of Wakf, West Bengal v Anis Fatma Begum and another: [Civil Appeal No. 5297 of 2004 Decided on 23.11.2010] and drew the attention to the following passages in the said decision: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35135-DB WA No. 671 of 2025 "10. In our opinion, all matters pertaining to Wakfs should be filed in the first instance before the Wakf Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 and should not be entertained by the civil court or by the High Court straightaway under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. xxx 12. xxx 13. xxx 14. Thus, the Wakf Tribunal can decide all disputes, questions or other matters relating to a Wakf or Wakf property. The words “any dispute, question or other matters relating to a Wakf or Wakf property” are, in our opinion, words of very wide connotation. Any dispute, question or other matters whatsoever and in whatever manner which arises relating to a Wakf or Wakf property can be decided by the Wakf Tribunal. The word “Wakf” has been defined in Section 3(r) of the Wakf Act, 1995 and hence once the property is found to be a Wakf property as defined in Section 3(r), then any dispute, question or other matter relating to it should be agitated before the Wakf Tribunal. 15. xxx 16. We may further clarify that the party can approach the Wakf Tribunal, even if no order has been passed under the Act, against which he/she is aggrieved. It may be mentioned that Sections 83(1) and 84 of the Act do not confine the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal to the determination of the correctness or otherwise of an order passed under the Act. No doubt Section 83(2) refers to the orders passed under the Act, but, in our opinion, Sections 83(1) and 84 of the Act are independent provisions, and they do not require an order to be passed under the Act before invoking the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal. Hence, it cannot be said that a party can approach the Wakf Tribunal only against an order passed under the Act. In our opinion, even if no order has been passed under the Act, the party can approach the Wakf Tribunal for the determination of any dispute, question or other matters relating to a Wakf or Wakf property, as the plain language of Sections 83(1) and 84 indicates. 17. We may clarify that under the proviso to Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 a party aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal can approach the High Court which can call for the records for satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35135-DB WA No. 671 of 2025 propriety of the decision of the Tribunal. This provision make it clear that the intention of Parliament is that the party who wishes to raise any dispute or matter relating to a Wakf or Wakf property should first approach the Tribunal before approaching the High Court. 8. In addition to the above, the learned Advocate General also referred to the decision of this Court in Mohammed Muzzamil v State of Karnataka and others: (Writ Petition No.20390/2021 [GM-WAKF] and Connected matters Decided on 16.11.2021) whereby, the challenge to the Election Notification had not been entertained on account of existence of an alternate remedy. 9. There is no dispute that an existence of alternate remedy does not bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the question is not whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Writ petition, but as to whether the said jurisdiction should be exercised in a case where an alternate remedy is available to the petitioner. It is well settled principle that the existence of an alternate remedy is a good reason for the Courts to refrain from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. In view of the above, we find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. However, we clarify that it would be open for the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35135-DB WA No. 671 of 2025 appellant to avail his remedies under the Act, including the challenge to the order dated 11.09.2024. 11. The writ appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 12. We clarify that all rights and contentions of the parties are reserved. 13. Pending application is also disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43