A statutory appeal to the Waqf Tribunal remained available against the Board’s nomination decision.

The petitioner and the fifth respondent were nominated by different Muslim jamaaths as representatives of Melakatchi to Keezhatheru Naina Mohammed Jumma Pallivasal.

The Waqf Board accepted the fifth respondent’s nomination and rejected the petitioner’s, principally on the ground that the petitioner’s nominating body was not identified in the pallivaasal’s approved Scheme as having authority to nominate a representative.

The petitioner challenged that decision, alleging that he had not been heard and that supporting documents—including a Waqf Inspector’s report recommending him—had not been considered.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice and judicial review, and relied on the Waqf Act, 1995 as providing a statutory remedy by way of appeal to the Waqf Tribunal.

It also treated the approved Scheme governing the pallivaasal as the relevant framework for determining which group was entitled to nominate a Melakatchi representative.

The judgment does not identify a specific statutory provision or precedent.

The Board’s order showed that it rejected the petitioner’s nomination because the approved Scheme did not identify his nominating body as having authority to select a representative.

Although the order did not specifically refer to the documents relied upon by the petitioner, the Court found that the decision was primarily based on the Scheme and concluded that the omission did not establish a defect in the decision-making process or a violation of natural justice.

Given the available statutory appeal, the Court declined to interfere in judicial review and left the parties’ contentions open.

All contentions were left open; there was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.