The main legal point established in the judgment is that the supersession of a statutory body under Section 99 of the Wakf Act, 1995 must be based on objective findings and cannot be justified solely by internal dissensions or mutual animosity.

Ajay Tewari, J.

1. This petition would dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 10819 of 2005, 11654 of 2005, 11657 of 2005 and 13926 of 2006 since common questions arise therein. The facts are being taken from C.W.P. No. 10819 of 2005.

2. It is pleaded that in the petition that the Punjab Wakf Board (for short the Board) was superseded on 11.11.1981 and thereafter no fresh Board was constituted. 20 years later C.W.P. No. 8166 of 2001 was filed for issuing directions to the respondents to constitute the Board. By Notification dated 1.8.2003 the State of Punjab established a new Punjab Wakf Board (in succession to the erstwhile Board, the jurisdiction of which extended to Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh). By another notification of the same date an Administrator was appointed for the new Board.

3. On 14.5.2004, this Court directed the State of Punjab to constitute the Board within a period of three weeks during the hearing of aforementioned C.W.P. No. 8166 of 2001. It is further pleaded that after a great deal of opposition by the Government, ultimately under the pressure of various court orders, the Board was constituted by the State of Punjab on 11.11.2004 and the petitioner and five other persons were nominated as members thereof. On 18.11.2004, the respondent No. 4 who, incidentally was impleaded on her application was elected as Chairperson of the Board. Further admitted position which has emerged from the record is that acrimonious relations developed between the chairperson and the other members. Eight meetings of the Board were held during the period 11.2.2005 to 25.5.2005 in which, due to the prevalent divisions, the respondent No. 4 did not participate. Matters came to such a pass that the respondent No. 4 addressed a representation to the Principal Secretary to Chief Minister, Punjab, requesting the Government to dissolve the Board.

4. Ultimately, on 15.6.2005, the State Government issued a notice under Section 99(1) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short the Act) requiring all the six members to show cause as to why the Board should not be superseded. All the members filed their replies and subsequently by Order dated 13.7.2005 the Board was superseded.

5. At this stage it would be apposite to notice a few subsequent details which have emerged from the pleadings of C.W.P. No. 13926 of 2006, During the hearing of C.W.P. No. 10819 of 2005 the learned Advocate General, Punjab, appeared before the Division Bench and took the stand that he would advise the State not to reconstitute the Board. However, thereafter by notification dated 9.11.2005 the State of Punjab reconstituted the Board changing all the other members except the respondent No. 4 who had to be renominated being the only Muslim member of the Legislative Assembly. The notification, however, stipulated mat this reconstitution shall be subject to the decision of this Court in C.W.P. No. 10819 of 2005. In fact, C.W.P. No. 13926 of 2006 was filed to challenge this notification.

6. Sh. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has argued mat firstly, the show cause notice recorded that allegations had been leveled against the petitioner and an inquiry was also conducted but the same were not supplied so as to enable the petitioner to file a reply thereto. Developing this argument further the drew my attention to the following lines in the impugned order:

The demand for supply of inquiry report cannot be accepted because it is an internal inquiry Conducted by an officer of the State Government or orders of H.E. The Governor of Punjab. He further urged that the whole matter was evidently predecided as would be clear from the show cause notice which itself recorded that the Chairperson had requested the Government to dissolve the Board forthwith. In this regard he also placed reliance on certain newspaper reports in early June, 2005 i.e. even prior to the issuance of the show cause notice whereby the Chief Minister announced that the Board had been s