The court upheld the removal of a Chairperson from the District Waqf Committee under Section 67(6) of the Waqf Act, affirming that the Chairperson falls within the definition of 'member.'

ORDER :

GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

“I. Issue a writ in the nature of Interim Relief to stay the Impugned Order passed by the Respondent No.1 (Annexure P-1) till the pendency of the Writ Petition.

II. Issue a writ in the nature of Interim Relief to restrain the Respondents from taking any coercive against the Petitioner.

III. Issue any other interim order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be granted to the petitioner.

2. Admittedly, the order under challenge is an appealable order. Accordingly, counsel for petitioner was repeatedly suggested that since there is no good ground to bypass the statutory remedy, therefore, petitioner may prefer an appeal before the Waqf Tribunal but the counsel for petitioner insisted that since the order under challenge has been passed without jurisdiction, therefore, the matter should be heard and he should not be relegated back to appeal. Under these circumstances, counsel for petitioner was permitted to argue the matter on merits.

3. By referring to order dated 14.03.2024, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner is working as Mutawalli whereas he has been removed from the post of Chairperson, District Waqf Committee, Shahdol. It is submitted that show cause notice was issued under Section 67(6) of Waqf Act and the impugned order has also been passed under the said section which is applicable only to member of District Waqf Committee and not to the Chairperson of District Waqf Committee, therefore, the order under challenge is bad in law. It is further submitted that allegations on the basis of which petitioner has been removed from the post of Chairperson, District Waqf Committee, Shahdol is false. In fact eviction proceedings were going on against one Taj Khan and possession of said shop was handed over by Taj Khan to petitioner and accordingly, possession panchnama was also prepared. It is submitted that thereafter petitioner informed Tehsildar, Shahdol to drop the eviction proceedings on the ground that Taj Khan has already handed over the vacant possession of the property in dispute. It is further submitted that Mutawalli can be removed under Section 64 of Waqf Act but power has been exercised under Section 67(6) of Waqf Act. It is further submitted that enquiry report was not supplied by which it was reported that Taj Khan is still in possession of shop in question.

4. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner.

5. Section 67(6) of Waqf Act reads as under:

“67. Supervision and supersession of committee of management.-

(1) ***** *****

(2) ***** ***** *****

(3) ***** ***** *****

(4) ***** ***** *****

(5) ***** ***** *****

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-sections, the Board may, instead of superseding any committee under sub-section (2), remove any member thereof if it is satisfied that such member has abused his position as such member or had knowingly acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the waqf, and every such order for the removal of any member shall be served upon him by registered post:

Provided that no order for the removal of the member shall be made unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action:

Provided further that any member aggrieved by any order for his removal from the membership of the committee may, within a period of thirty days from the date of service of the order on him, prefer an appeal against such order to the Tribunal and