JUDGMENT :

1. Although there is a remedy against the impugned order before the U.P. Waqf Tribunal, Lucknow, as it is not functioning on account of vacancy on the post of presiding officer, therefore, we have entertained this petition and are deciding it with the consent of the parties.

2. Heard Shri Q.H. Rizwi, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 as well as Shri Syed Aftab Ahmad, Advocate holding brief of Shri Adil Hussain, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.3 to 5. Considering the nature of the dispute, we do not propose to call for any counter affidavit in the matter.

3. The petitioners herein have challenged an order dated 16.08.2021 passed by the U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board by which another Committee of Management/Mutwalli has been appointed.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner no. 1/Committee of Management was initially appointed for three years on 22.01.2015. He says that the term of the Committee of Management was extended vide order dated 29.01.2018 w.e.f 22.01.2018 for three years. This term expired on 21.01.2021. The petitioner moved an application for extension of its term. In the meantime, as is mentioned in the impugned order, another committee of management is said to have been elected by the local persons. The Waqf in question being Waqf Al-al Khair that is a public waqf and the same was forwarded to the U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board for appointment as Committee of Management along with letter of one Sibtain Haider dated 06.07.2021. Thereafter it is said that some complaint was made against the petitioner no. 1/committee of management which was ordered to be inquired by the Waqf inspector. However, as it was represented by the petitioners that a fair inquiry is not possible by him, the law officer of the Waqf Board was ordered to inquire into the matter, who submitted his report dated 11.08.2021, wherein two deficiencies were found in the Management of the Waqf. Firstly, the petitioner no. 1 had undertaken some constructions in connection with the Waqf, but without permission of the Board. Moreover, the Board was not informed for making necessary entries about the said constructions in its records; Secondly, it is said that the Waqf also runs a Madarsa Darul Uloom Mohammadia. However on inquiry, it was found that its functioning is being managed by a separate society and not by the petitioner which has been taken as a deficiency, by the Board. The Board by means of the impugned order has opined that the term of the petitioner no. 1 having expired and another committee having been elected by the locals, the latter had been appointed to manage the Waqf in question.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without any opportunity of hearing and that it is a non speaking order. In this regard, he relies upon Sub section 2 of Section 67 of the Waqf Act, 1995.

6. The petitioner's application for extension of term has been rejected and another Committee of Management has been appointed to manage the Waqf in question.

7. First and foremost, we would like to refer to Section 3 (i) of the Waqf Act, 1995 which defines the term 'mutawalli' to mean any person appointed, either verbally or under any deed or instrument by which a waqf has been created, or by a competent authority, to be the mutawalli of a waqf and includes any person who is a mutawalli of a waqf by virtue of any custom or who is a naib-mutawalli, khandim, mujawar, sajjadanashin, amin or other person appointed by a mutawalli to perform the duties of a mutawalli and save as otherwise provided in this Act, any person, committee or corporation for the time being, managing or administering any waqf or waqf property.

8. The definition of mutawalli, as referred herein above, thus includes a committee. We now consider the provisions of Section 63 of the Act, 1995 which reads as under:

"63. Power to appoint mutawallis in certain cases - When the