In the case: Maharashtra State Board Of Waqfs versus Sheikh Yusuf Bhai Chawla (CA 7812-14 of 2022).
The statement was made by the bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy as they were reviewing an appeal brought up by the Maharashtra State Waqf Board against a 2011 Bombay High Court ruling that had declared the Maharashtra State Waqf Board's constitution invalid.
An alternative remedy is offered by the Act, the Board argued before the Supreme Court, and an aggrieved person may contact the Wakf Tribunal.
While it may be true that a statute may provide an alternative forum to which the High Court may assign a party in a proper case, the Bench noted that the availability of the alternative remedy by itself cannot eliminate the High Court's constitutional authority.
The statement was made by the bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy as they were reviewing an appeal brought up by the Maharashtra State Waqf Board against a 2011 Bombay High Court ruling that had declared the Maharashtra State Waqf Board's constitution invalid.
According to the decision, when the High Court exercises its authority under Article 226 it cannot be argued that it has inherent jurisdiction because a constitutional remedy is barred or precluded.
The top court noted the protracted pending of the appeal filed against the High Court ruling and noted that when the High Court has heard a case and then a case is brought before this court in a jurisdiction under Article 136, the court's problems are exacerbated.
Author: Swetha Gunasekaran Advocate
