Alternative statutory remedy bars writ jurisdiction where disputed facts exist and no exceptional ground is shown.

Where an efficacious statutory remedy exists under the Waqf Act, 1995, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be exercised, particularly when the dispute involves contested questions of fact and no recognised exception is shown. Section 83 provides a remedy before the Waqf Tribunal for a person aggrieved by an order under the Act, and the presence of that alternate forum weighed against admission of the writ petition. As no basis was shown to bypass the statutory route, the High Court declined to entertain the petition and left the petitioner to pursue the Tribunal remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the alternative remedy under the Waqf Act, 1995.

Analysis: Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995 provides an efficacious statutory remedy before the Waqf Tribunal to a person aggrieved by an order under the Act. The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and ordinarily is not to be invoked when an effective alternate remedy exists, save in recognised exceptional situations such as violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, challenge to vires, or enforcement of fundamental rights. The controversy also involved disputed questions of fact, which further weighed against exercise of writ jurisdiction, and no acceptable basis was shown to bypass the statutory forum.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed for failure to avail the statutory alternative remedy.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and left the petitioner to pursue the remedy available before the Waqf Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory remedy is available and no exceptional circumstance is shown, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised, especially where adjudication depends on disputed questions of fact.

---