The failure to furnish copies of the documents on which the opinion to supersede the Waqf Board was formed violated the principles of natural justice and rendered the supersession illegal.

NOBIN SINGH, J.

1. Heard Shri. B.P. Sahu, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner; Smt. Momota Oinam, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Shri. Y. Nirmolchand, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.

2. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to quash FR/NFR and set aside the impugned order dated 01-03-2018 issued by the Deputy Secretary (MOBC), Government of Manipur.

3.1. The facts of the case as narrated in the writ petition, are that the Waqf Board, Manipur was constituted by the Government of Manipur under the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995. In exercise of the power conferred under Section 14(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995 read with Rule 35 of the Manipur Waqf Board (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1997, the members of the 6th Waqf Board, Manipur were appointed vide Notification dated 05-06-2015 issued by the Secretary (MOBC), Government of Manipur, for which the petitioner was the Chairman and since then, the Board had been imparting its duties and responsibilities to the full satisfaction of all concerned till the issuance of the impugned order.

3.2. To the utter surprise of the petitioner, the Deputy Secretary (MOBC & SC), Government of Manipur issued a show cause notice dated 31-01-2018 to the Chief Executive Officer, Waqf Board, in a purported exercise of the power conferred under Section 99 of the Waqf Act, 1995, to show cause as to why the Waqf Board should not be dissolved and superseded. Although many allegations were made in the said notice, no documents in support thereof were furnished to the petitioner and the members of the Waqf Board and in response thereto, the Chief Executive Officer, Waqf Board submitted a written explanation to the Deputy Secretary (MOBC), Government of Manipur vide its letter dated 06-02-2018 explaining the details as regards the charges made in the notice. Without considering the said explanations given by the Waqf Board and completely overlooking and neglecting the amendment of Section 99 of the Waqf Act, 1995, the Deputy Secretary (MOBC), Government of Manipur issued an order dated 01-03-2018, impugned herein, dissolving and superseding the Waqf Board.

3.3. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 01-03-2018, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the inter-alia grounds that the provisions of Section 99 of the Waqf Act, 1995 have been grossly misused and have been illegally applied in the present case; that the amendment of the said provisions of Section 99 has been totally overlooked and neglected while issuing the said order for dissolving the Waqf Board, Manipur; that as per the provisions of Section 99 of the Act, the Waqf Board can only be superseded and not dissolved by the State Government; that the supersession of the Waqf Board can also be done when it is found that the Waqf Board has persistently made default for the purpose of its statutory duties or it has exceeded or abused its power and that the respondents have failed to furnish any document in respect of the allegations made in the notice. Moreover, the show cause has been issued to the Chief Executive Officer and not to the petitioner or any other member of the Waqf Board which is a must. Therefore, the acts of the respondents in dissolving the Waqf Board are illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, malafide, biased, discriminatory, vindictive and capricious to the extent that they have deprived the petitioner of his fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

4. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 wherein it has been stated that the Waqf Board has been superseded for six months, and not dissolved, by the State Government as per the provisions of Section 99 of the Waqf Act, 1995 and the error occurred in the impugned order dated 01-03-2018 has been rectified by issuing a Corrigendum dated 2