The main legal point established is that the invocation of Sec. 64 of the Waqf Act, 1995 and the actions taken by the Board were found to be within its jurisdiction, and the petitioner's remedy lies before the Tribunal.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The petitioner/Central Majlis-E-Shoora Jamaia Masjid ('the Masjid' for short) is knocking at the doors of this Court calling in question Notice dtd. 15/7/2022 issued by the 2nd respondent/Karnataka State Board of Auqaf ('the Board' for short) and an order dtd. 10/8/2022 passed by the 2nd respondent placing the Committee under suspension.

2. Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:- The petitioner is the Masjid, the Managing Committee managing the administration of Auqaf property in Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District. The said Masjid was constituted on 8/3/2021 and the term of the Masjid which was constituted by the 3rd respondent was for a period of three years. The tenure of the Masjid was to end on 7/3/2024. After about 16 months of the Masjid constituted, alleging huge misappropriation of funds, a notice comes to be issued by the Board invoking Sec. 64 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) indicating to the Masjid that enquiry would be held under sub-rule (2) of Rules 46 of the Karnataka Waqf Rules, 2017 (for short 'the Rules'). Explanation called for from the Masjid was in terms of the said notice. The Masjid appears to have submitted its reply pursuant to which an order comes to be passed on 10/8/2022 keeping the Masjid under suspension. On both these acts, one being issuance of notice under Sec. 64 of the Act and the other keeping the Masjid under suspension, the Masjid is before this Court in the subject petition.

3. Heard Sri. Shahbaaz Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Smt. Shwetha Krishnappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt. S.R. Anuradha, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend with vehemence that the entire proceeding instituted by the Board is contrary to law. It is the submission of the learned counsel that Sec. 64 is invoked only for removal of Mutawalli. The Masjid is not Mutawalli nor Mutawalli is the Masjid and further proceedings placing the Masjid under suspension is again contrary to Sec. 64 of the Act. The learned counsel would submit that supersession of the Masjid can happen only under Sec. 67 of the Act and by invoking Sec. 64 of the Act, Sec. 67 is rendered redundant. He would seek quashment of the entire action.

5. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel representing the Board would refute the submissions to contend that Mutawalli is a Masjid of Mutawallis. Therefore, invocation of Sec. 64 is not contrary to law but in tune with law. She would contend that Sec. 67 operates in a different scenario and is invokable only when the Masjid has to be superseded on any allegation. Without prejudice to the aforesaid contention, the learned senior counsel would submit that the remedy available to the petitioner is by approaching the Tribunal under Sec. 83 of the Act and as such the writ petition filed is not maintainable at this stage.

6. In reply to the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner would take this Court to Sec. 18 of the Act and seeks to demonstrate as to what forms the Masjid and would contend that the entire act of the respondent/Board being one without jurisdiction, it cannot be said that the writ petition is not maintainable and since they are acts without jurisdiction the writ petition is undoubtedly maintainable.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

8. The petitioner/Masjid was constituted on 8/3/2021 and the tenure of the Masjid was to end on 7/3/2014. On certain allegations of misappropriation upon the petitioner/ Masjid by the Board, a notice comes to be issued pending conduct of an enquiry seeking reply from the hands of the petitioner. The contents of the notice which are germane read as fol