Removal from office requires adherence to statutory provisions and principles of natural justice, including the right to a hearing.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 23.07.2024 [Annexure P/2] passed by the Chief Executive Officer, M.P. Waqf Board, respondent, whereby he has been removed from the Post of President of District Waqf Committee, Indore.

2. As per the petitioner, he was appointed as the President of District Waqf Committee of District Indore by order dated 31.08.2023 wherein a committee of fifteen persons was constituted for overseeing the Waqf Board and committees situated at Indore. A complaint was made by one Mohammad Aslam Khan to the respondent stating that the petitioner has been convicted for offences punishable under the Gambling Act in the year 2003 and 2007 hence is not fit to continue as President of District Waqf Committee. On the basis of the said complaint, the petitioner has been WP-22992-2024 removed from the Post of President of District Waqf Committee.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order. He has not been afforded any opportunity of hearing and his removal is contrary to the principles of natural justice and is also contrary to law. Before removal of the petitioner, as per section 67 of the Waqf Act, 1995 it was mandatory for a notice to have been issued to him. The complaint filed against the petitioner was without any basis. Since the impugned order is a stigmatic order it could not have been passed behind the back of petitioner which hence deserves to be set aside.

4. Reply has been filed by the respondent M.P. Waqf Board. An application bearing I.A. No.7848 of 2024 has been preferred by an intervenor namely Raees Shah for intervening in the petition. Similar application bearing I.A. No.8380 of 2024 has been preferred by an intervenor Nasir Mohammad. The original complainant Mohammad Aslam Khan has also preferred an application bearing I.A. No.8581 of 2024 for intervention. Though the applications for intervention have not formally been allowed by this Court but with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent, the learned counsel for the intervenors have also been heard. WP-22992-2024

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent as well as the senior counsel for the intervenors is that the petitioner had got himself appointed on the post of President of the Waqf Committee though he was not entitled for the same as per the provisions of Waqf Act. He had not disclosed the record of criminal cases registered against him and on the basis of such mis-representation and/or fraud had secured his appointment. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a habitual criminal and has been convicted by the criminal Court. The affidavit which had been submitted by him seeking appointment contained false and incorrect facts. He was obliged to disclose the criminal cases registered against him which he did not do and instead stated that there is no such criminal case. Since his appointment is on the basis of concealment of material facts, the same has rightly been terminated. It is also submitted that the provisions of Section 67 of the Waqf Act are not applicable to the facts of the case since they deal with supersession of management committee and do not deal with removal of any of its member. The petitioner has an alternate remedy of preferring an appeal before the Waqf Tribunal against the impugned order but has directly approached this Court hence the petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is further submitted that since the petitioner had procured his appointment on the basis of concea