Back
2007 Supreme(Raj) 642
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Vineet Kothari
Chief Executive Officer,Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf,Jaleb Chowk,Jaipur - Appellant
Versus
Islamuddin - Respondent
38 of 2007,31-35 of 2007,37 of 2007
Decided On : 04/27/2007
Mr. M.C. Taylor, for the Applicants.
Mr. S.M. Ali, Mr. Z.A. Naqvi and Mr. Amod Kasliwal, for the Non-applicants.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between committees appointed under different sections of the Wakf Act and the importance of involving both nominated and elected members in decision-making processes.
Headnote:
Wakf Act - Wakf Committee - Section 18, Section 14, Section 15, Section 64(4), Section 67(4), Section 67(2), Section 67(5) - The judgment discusses the provisions of the Wakf Act, including the constitution, functions, and duties of committees for the supervision of wakfs under Section 18, the constitution of the Wakf Board under Section 14, and the term of office of the members of the Board under Section 15. It also addresses the appeal process under Section 64(4) and Section 67(4), and the grounds for removal of Mutawalli under Section 64(1). The court's decision emphasizes the distinction between committees appointed under Section 18 and those under Section 67, and the lack of applicability of certain provisions to the present case.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over the administration and management of a wakf property in Bharatpur, Rajasthan. The Wakf Board passed an order to hand over the charge of defunct committees to an official, leading to appeals before the Wakf Tribunal, which were subsequently challenged through revision petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order to hand over the charge of defunct committees did not amount to removal or supersession of the committees. It set aside the Tribunal's order, emphasizing that the impugned order was not stigmatic and did not require an enquiry. The court directed the Wakf Board to appoint new committees within four weeks, ensuring the involvement of both nominated and elected members in the decision-making process.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the order to hand over the charge of defunct committees, the competence of the appeals before the Tribunal, and the process for appointing new committees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified the distinction between committees appointed under Section 18 and those under Section 67 of the Wakf Act, emphasizing that certain provisions did not apply to the present case. It also highlighted the importance of involving both nominated and elected members in the appointment of new committees.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Tribunal's order, directed the Wakf Board to appoint new committees within four weeks, and allowed the present committees to continue their work under the status quo orders.
Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.-In this batch of revision petitions filed under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short, the Act), a short but interesting question arises for consideration by this Court.
2. Under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, the Wakf Board may, whenever it considers necessary, establish either generally or for a particular purpose or for any specified area or areas committees for the supervision of wakfs. The constitution, functions and duties and the term of office of such committees shall be determined from time to time by the Board and it shall not be necessary for a the members of such committees to be members of the Board. The Wakf Board itself is constituted in accordance with Section 14 of the Act by a notification in the Official Gazette by the State Government and the term of office of the members of the Board shall be five years, vide Section 15 of the Act. The present Board was constituted on 210.2005 comprising of 11 members, 6 elected members and 5 nominated by the State Government including the Chairman of the Board.
3. The controversy in the present case arises in relation to wakf property situated in Bharatpur for the administration and management of which a Wakf Committee headed by Janab Haji Islamuddin appointed as Sadar of the said Committee was appointed vide Annexure 3 dated 110.2003 for a term of three years. Vide Annexure 4 dated 212.2006 by an order passed by Chief Executive Officer of the Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakfs, Jaipur, the Board passed an order that on account of expiry of term of specified 5 Committees, the charge of such 5 Committees be handed over to one Shri Rajendra Kumar Sharma, Inspector of the Wakf Board who will take charge of the wakf properties in question and this arrangement would continue till further orders. It was further directed by the said order that if the aforesaid 5 defunct committees do not hand over the charge, such appointed Incharge Shri Rajendra Kumar Sharma can approach the First Class Magistrate, Bharatpur under Section 68 of the Wakf Act and may also get special audit done under Sections 46, 47 and 48 of the Act and one Mr. Turabuddin was also appointed as assistant of the said Inspector Shri R.P. Sharma. It may be noted that the term of one of the committees at Serial No. 1 had expired on 20.08.2002 whereas the term of the remaining 4 committees expired on 112.2006 and, thus, the aforesaid order Annexure 4 was passed on 212.2006.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the present respondents filed appeals before the Wakf Tribunal under Section 64(4) read with Section 67(4) which is constituted under Section 83 of the Act. The Tribunal allowed the said appeals by a common Judgment dated 10.01.2007 holding that since the order dated 212.2006 was passed without complying with the principles of natural justice and without holding any enquiry and without a resolution being passed by 2/3rd majority, the said orders were illegal and, therefore, were liable to be set aside.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal dated 10.01.2007, the present revision petitions have been filed by the Chief Executive Officer, Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf , Jaipur; Chairman, Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf , Jaipur; and Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf under Section 83(9) of the Act.
6. Mr. M.C. Taylor, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the appeals filed before the Tribunal were not even maintainable because with the expiry of the term of the Committee, it became automatically defunct and non-existent and, therefore, there was no question of any supersession of the Committee in question nor any question of removal of Mutawalli arose under Section 67(2) or Section 64(1) of the Act and, therefore, the appeal itself was incompetent and could not be entertained by the Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1995. He submitted that firstly there was no reason of any grievance to the respondents upon the expiry of term of the Com
