The removal of a Mutawalli under section 64 of the Wakf Act, 1995 must be preceded by a valid enquiry conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Act and the Rules, and the Board must take a specific decision indicating that the recommendation for removal was approved by a 2/3rd majority.

( 1 ) THIS application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of some of the members of a Mutawalli Committee constituted under section 63 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which has since been removed and is directed against order dated 30th April, 2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal, West Bengal, in Appeal No. 1 of 2004 thereby approving the order of removal dated 31" December, 2003 passed by the Wakf Board.

( 2 ) THERE is no dispute that the petitioners along with others were the members of the Mutawalli Committee appointed under section 63 of the Act which had been supervising the Wakf property in dispute from 2000.

( 3 ) IN the year 2002, on the basis of some allegations against the Committee of which the petitioners are the members, an enquiry was held by an Inspector of the Board at the instance of the Chief Executive Officer of the Board and a report was submitted to the said Chief Executive Officer pointing out various irregularities committed by the Mutawalli Committee of the petitioners. Subsequently, the Board directed the Mutawalliship and Enrolment Committee ("me Committee"), to enquire into the matter. The said ME Committee issued notice upon the present petitioners by certificate of posting on December 19, 2003 thereby fixing 30th December, 2003 for hearing. On 30th December, 2003, the date fixed for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners and the me Committee recommended removal of the said Committee and appointment of a new Mutawalli-Committee in place of old Committee. It appears from the record that on the very next day viz. 31st December, 2003 the Board of Wakf had approved such recommendation and consequently, such order was communicated to the petitioners. In the order communicating the decision of the Board it is expressly mentioned that such removal was made under sections 64 (1) (g), (h), (i) and (k) of the Act.

( 4 ) BEING dissatisfied with the decision of removal of the Mutawalli-Committee of the petitioners, they preferred an appeal before the Wakf Tribunal and by the order impugned herein the said Tribunal has dismissed the appeal.

( 5 ) BEING dissatisfied, the petitioners have come up with the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. While entertaining this application, a learned Single Judge of this Court having granted an interim order, the opposite party filed an application for variation of such interim order and while taking up such application for variation of interim order, this Court decided to hear out the main revisional application by treating the application for variation of interim order as the affidavit-in-opposition to the revisional application.

( 6 ) ON behalf of the Board of Wakf, the original records were produced and accordingly, submissions were made by the learned Counsel for the parties on the basis of the materials on record so placed.

( 7 ) MR. Munshi, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has made threefold submission in support of this application.

( 8 ) FIRST, Mr. Munshi has contended that his clients were removed from mutawalliship by not following the provisions contained in section 64 of the act. Mr. Munshi contends that according to those provisions, it is for the Board of Wakf to take decision after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and such decision must be taken by at least 2/3rd majority of the members of board of Wakf.

( 9 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Munshi, in the present case, the ME Committee issued a purported notice under certificate of posting on December 19, 2003 thereby fixing 30th December, 2003 for enquiry. By placing the envelope sent to the petitioner No. 1 before this Court, Mr. Munshi pointed out that although such notice was posted on 19th December, 2003 but as it appears from the postal mark of post office where the petitioner No. 1 resides, the same was received by that post