AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard Mr. G. Marimuthu, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, as well as Mr. K.K. Senthil, the
learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent.
The main contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is that the notice issued by the Respondent, u/s 72(1) of the
Wakf Act, 1995, is without jurisdiction, as the net annual income of the Petitioner wakf is less than Rs. 5,000/-.
The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent had submitted that it would be open to the Petitioner to raise the said issue before
the Wakf Board, u/s 72(7) of the Wakf Act, 1995.
In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, as well as the Respondent, this Court is of the
considered view that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the Petitioner, to
raise the issues, which had been raised by the Petitioner in the present writ petition, before the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, u/s 72(7) of the Wakf
Act, 1995. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, it is made
clear that it would be open to the Petitioner to raise all the grounds available to the petitioner, before the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, in the manner
known to law, if so advised.