Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked when an efficacious statutory remedy before the Waqf Tribunal is already pending.

The Petitioner challenged the construction of shops on Waqf property (Nazul Sheet No. 17, Bhukhand No. 185) at Kawardha.

Despite a recommendation dated 18.03.2026 by the Chief Executive Officer of the Chhattisgarh State Waqf Board to stop the construction, Respondent No. 4 (the Mutawalli) allegedly continued the work, and Respondent No. 3 (District Collector) failed to act.

The Petitioner had already filed an application under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act, 1995, before the Chhattisgarh Waqf Tribunal in January 2026, which remained pending due to a purported lack of quorum.

The State argued that the Tribunal was fully functional and seized of the matter.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when a statutory alternative remedy before the Waqf Tribunal has already been invoked and is pending.

2. Whether a direction for the expeditious disposal of the pending proceedings before the Waqf Tribunal is warranted.

The Court emphasized the principle of exhausting an efficacious alternative statutory remedy provided under the Waqf Act, 1995.

Specifically, Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995, establishes the Waqf Tribunal as the competent body to adjudicate all questions and disputes relating to Waqf property, its management, and administration.

The Court also applied the procedural principle that parallel proceedings for the same cause of action should not be maintained simultaneously in different forums.

The Court observed that the core of the dispute—unauthorized construction and management of Waqf property—falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal.

Since the Petitioner had already approached the Tribunal under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act in January 2026, the Court found no justification for entertaining a writ petition on the same merits.

While the Petitioner claimed a lack of quorum at the Tribunal, the State Counsel clarified that the Tribunal was currently functioning with all three members.

Consequently, the Court determined that rather than adjudicating the merits, the appropriate course of action was to ensure that the statutory body already seized of the matter resolves it within a reasonable timeframe.

The Court directed the competent Waqf Tribunal to consider and decide the pending proceedings/application strictly in accordance with the law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order.

The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.