SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Jhk) 559

High Court Of Jharkhand
Judgename : VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD
ALI AKHTAR QUADRI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR - Respondents
C. W. J. C. 12752 Of 1999
Decided On : 05/02/2003

Advocates Appeared:
M.KHAN, N.N.TIVARI, P.K.PRASAD

The central legal point established is that the power to remove a Mutawalli lies with the Board, and delegation of powers must be evidenced by a written resolution. Inherent lack of jurisdiction can make a writ petition maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy.

Headnote:

WAKF - Removal of Mutawalli - Section 64(1), Section 3(c), Section 13, Section 27 - The court discussed the legal provisions under the Wakf Act, 1995, particularly focusing on the powers of the Board, the constitution of the Board, and the delegation of powers. The court emphasized that the power to remove a Mutawalli lies with the Board, which is constituted by the State Government. It highlighted the requirement of a written resolution for delegation of powers and concluded that the impugned order was without jurisdiction as there was no evidence of delegation to the Chairman.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Mutawalli of a Waqf Estate, was removed from the post on grounds of misappropriation. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing that the Chairman had no legal authority to pass it.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the order was without jurisdiction as the power to remove the Mutawalli lies with the Board, and there was no evidence of delegation to the Chairman. It also held that the writ petition was maintainable due to inherent lack of jurisdiction in the impugned order.

Issues: Jurisdiction of the Chairman to pass the removal order, maintainability of the writ petition without availing alternative remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: The power to remove a Mutawalli lies with the Board, and delegation of powers must be evidenced by a written resolution. Inherent lack of jurisdiction can make a writ petition maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy.

Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order and allowed the writ petition.

Judgment :

VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) ANNEXURE -2, by which the petitioner, who was the Mutawalli of Shiekh Quadir Bakhsh Waqf Estate, Giridih, was removed from the post of Mutawalli on the ground of misappropriation of the income of the Waqf properties and in place of the petitioner, a Committee was constituted to work as Mutawalli, has been sought to be quashed in this writ petition. This order has been passed by the Chairman, Wakf Board, Patna, on 9-5-1998 and, according to the respondents, the same had been communicated by the Secretary of the Board.

( 2 ) THE main ground for seeking the quashing of the impugned order is that the order was without jurisdiction as the Chairman had no legal authority to pass the same.

( 3 ) THE aggrieved respondents appeared and contested the writ petition. According to the respondents, the petitioner has been rightly removed by the Chairman, who had the delegated power under Section 27 of the Wakf Act, 1995, and the order was communicated by the Secretary of the Board. The further contention raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the aforesaid respondents is that the order was passed in the year 1998 and as the removal was made under Section 64 (1) (i) of the Act, the remedy available to the petitioner was to file an appeal under Section 64 (4) of the Act and by not availing this remedy, the petitioner had come to this Court directly and as such, the writ petition was not maintainable on the date of its filing (this writ petition was filed in the year 1999 at Patna High Court and this had been received on transfer after creation of the High Court of Jharkhand ).

( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, the order has been passed by the Chairman ecause the impugned order at its bottom reads as follows :-"signature-ILLEGIBLE chairman wakf Board patna 9-5-1998. "the main question to be answered is whether the impugned order is sustainable in law or whether it is in excess of the jurisdiction vested in the Chairman under the Act.

( 5 ) SECTION 64 (1) reads as follows :-"64. Removal of mutawalli. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law or the deed of wakf, the Board may remove a mutawalli from his office, if such mutawalli. . . . . . . . . . " from the aforesaid provision, it is clear that it is the Board, which has the power to remove the Mutuwalli. Then the question arose what is the Board. The Board is defined under Section 3 (c) of the Act as follows:"3 (c ). "board"means a Board of Wakf established under sub-section (1) , or as the case may be, under sub-section (2) of Section 13 and shall include a common Wakf Board established under Section 106. " section 13 reads as follows :-"13. Incorporation. (1) With effect from such date as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint in this behalf there shall be established a Board of Wakfs under such name as may be specified in the notification. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if the Shia Wakfs in any State constitute in number more than fifteen per cent of all the Wakfs in the State or if the income of the properties of the Shia Wakfs in the State constitutes more than fifteen per cent of the total income of properties of allthe Wakfs in the State, State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish a Board of Wakfs each for Sunni Wakfs and for Shia Wakfs under such names as may be specified in the notification. (3) The Board shall be a Body Corporate, having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire and hold property and to transfer any such property subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed and shall by the said name sue and be sued. "from the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the Board has to be constituted by the notification of the State Government to be notified in the Official Gazette. Thus, the Board itself is a creation of the State. Under section, the constitution of the Board has been defined along with







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top