( 1 ) THE petitioner, who is the Mutawalli of the Wakf Institution, by name Jamia mosque, has filed this writ petition impugning the Notice No. B3/1/atp/2003, dated 18-1-2003, issued by the 1st respondent, calling upon him to show cause as to why action should not be taken under section 64 (5) of the Wakf Act, 1995.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a permanent mutawalli of Jamia Mosque. He was appointed on 30-5-1984. He claims to have been discharging his duties sincerely and in the best interest of the institution. While so, on the basis of certain allegations made against him by the 2nd respondent-District collector, the 1st respondent-Wakf Board, in its meeting held on 18-1-2003, unanimously resolved to place the petitioner under suspension for a period of ten days, it was also resolved to issue show cause notice as contemplated under Section 64 (5) of the wakf Act, 1995 (for short the Wakf Act ). In pursuance of the said resolution, the 1st respondent issued two different notices dated 18-1-2002, one placing the petitioner under suspension for a period of ten days, to which there is no challenge in the writ petition, and another enumerating 64 allegations, to which there is challenge in the writ petition, calling upon the petitioner to explain the charges and to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 64 (5) of the Wakf Act.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner attacked the impugned notice on the following grounds, namely (1) the impugned notice is vague inasmuch as it does not divulge the names of the persons who levelled the allegations against him, it also does not mention the action that is proposed to be taken under Section 64 (5) of the Wakf Act. (2) Unless enquiry as contemplated under sub-section (3) of section 64 of the Wakf Act, and the procedure contemplated for conducting enquiry under Sections 70 and 71 thereof and Rule 24 of the Wakf Rules, 2000 are complied with, no action can follow under section 64 (5) of the Wakf Act, and therefore, the impugned notice, which is issued without complying with the said provisions, has no statutory or legal basis. (3) If the impugned notice is to be understood as one traceable to sub-section (5) of Section 64 of the Wakf Act, the petitioner should be given reasonable opportunity of being heard against the proposed action, and the action proposed thereunder should be limited to one of extension of the suspension beyond the period of ten days and not anything else, and (4) The impugned notice is without authority and bad in law for the reason that the 1st respondent has issued the same under the influence of the State Government and District Collector, which amounted to surrender and abdication of power by the 1st respondent to the said authorities.

( 4 ) THE learned Additional Advocate general defended the impugned notice. He would contend that the action proposed under Section 64 (5) of the Wakf Act is limited to placing the petitioner under suspension until the conclusion of the enquiry and does not contemplate action of removal of the petitioner from the post of mutawalli under Section 64 (1) of the Wakf act, and therefore, neither the provisions of sections 70 and 71 of the Wakf Act, nor the provision of Rule 24 of the Wakf Rules, 2000 arc attracted. Inasmuch as the Wakf Board unanimously resolved to place the petitioner under suspension until the conclusion of the enquiry, which may well go beyond the initial suspension period of ten days, the 1st respondent in terms therewith first placed the petitioner under suspension for a period of ten days, and simultaneously issued the impugned notice in terms of the proviso appended to sub-section (5) of the Section 64 of the Wakf Act, to give the petitioner reasonable opportunity of being heard, before his suspension is extended beyond the period of ten days. The impugned notice, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not vague, and on the other hand, it