Failure to issue notice vitiates enquiry.

The Order of the Court was as follows :

The writ petition is one for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent relating to item No. 9/90 RC-629/C1/83-CGT dated 8-1-1992 and quash the same and consequently forbearing the second respondent from interfering with the petitioner, Muthavalli of private Wakf of Syed Badurddin Saheed Durgah, Pallavaram in Chingleput District.

2. By the impugned proceedings the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board has decided that pending the appointment of suitable officer as a Special Officer, a team of Board Officials including the Superintendent of Wakfs, Northern Zone, Wakf Inspector, Chengalpattu (East) shall be deputed to the petition Wakf to assume the management by such officer as is designated by the Secretary within 48 hours of this order etc. and it has also been stated in the impugned proceedings that the Special Officer shall prepare a voters' list of the Muslim Male members of 21 years of age and above for purposes of holding elections to constitute a managing committee along with a Muthavalli after observing all legal formalities connected with the election within a period of three years from this date. The above proceedings have been questioned by the petitioner herein.

3. The main contention on behalf of the petitioners is that in the year 1943 this Court has recognised the Wakf as a private wakf and declared all rights of one late Syed Ahamed to the office of the Muthavalliship. From that time onwards the said Syed Ahmed was the Muthavalli of the, Wakf Board. The above decision has been rendered in Appeal No. 469 of 1941 dated 27-4-1943.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued, relying upon the above judgment, that by the order dated 27-4-1943 in the above appeal, the Division Bench of this Court has recognised the rights of one Syed Ahamed as Muthavalli in pursuance of renouncement of the office of the trusteeship at the disputed Durgah by the respondent therein. Syed Ahamed was forced to file a suit and the respondent therein came to cancel the renouncement. But the Division Bench of this Court did not agree with the contentions of the respondents and decree the suit as prayed for. The renouncement was made in favour of the appellant therein that is, Syed Ahamed and that has been recorded by the Division Bench of this Court in Appeal No. 469 of 1941 dated 27-4-1943. It has been averred in the affidavit that in the year 1964 the said Syed Ahamed, by a registered deed appointed the petitioner herein as Muthavalli of the Durgah of Badruddin Saheed of 158, Zamin Pallavaram and Trustee of Hasinapuram village and his right as Muthavalli was recognised by the Wakf Board. On an application made by the third respondent herein, the petitioner herein was removed from Muthavalliship by the Wakf Board by the impugned proceedings dated 8-1-1992.

4A. After filing of the writ petition the sole petitioner seems to have died and his wife and son are brought on records as legal representatives of the deceased sole petitioner by the order of this Court dated 2-7-1993 in W.M.P. No. 10519 of 1993.

5. The main contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners was that the first petitioner was not served any notice before passing of the impugned order dated 8-1-1992. There was no proper opportunity given to the petitioner thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

6. It was further argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that on suo motu enquiry was initiated against the first petitioner herein by the Chairman of the Wakf Board and thereafter impugned orders have been passed on 8-1-1992 removing the first petitioner as the Muthavalli and no notice was served on the first petitioner before conducting the suo motu enquiry. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the action of the respondents is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

7. Learned counsel further argued that survey No. 344/1 has been shown a