MOHAMED YAKOOB Vs. KARNATAKA BORD OF WAKF BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in writ petition No. 26899 of 2000 claims to be the president of committee of mutavallies of jamia masjid, nanjangud, which committee is the petitioner in writ petition No. 34511 of 2000. Both the writ petitions pertain to the same subject-matter relating to the management of the affairs of the aforesaid masjid. Hence, both the petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to these writ petitions are stated as under. Jamia masjid, idgah masjid and the grave-yards situated in nanjangud town are wakf properties. It is claimed the same are being managed by the committee of mutavallies (petitioner in writ petition No. 34511 of 2000) constituted under a deed dated 31-7-1953 produced as annexure-a. A complaint was lodged as per Annexure-B in case No. L. c. c. 7 of 1989 by respondents 3 to 6 (2 to 5 in writ petition No. 26899 of 2000) before the wakf board seeking removal of mutawallies etc. , on certain allegations. After due enquiry, wakf board passed an order on 21-6-1997 removing the mutawallies. The said order became the subject matter in writ petition No. 22226 of 1997. In the meanwhile, an ad hoc committee was appointed and that became the subject-matter in another writ petition in writ petition No. 16553 of 1999. This court clubbed both the writ petitions and by an order dated 28-10-1999 quashed the orders impugned therein with a direction to the wakf board to conduct fresh enquiry within four weeks. Thereafter, the law committee of the wakf board conducted enquiry and passed the order at Annexure-C , dated 8-5-2000 removing the committee of mutawallies, to frame a proper scheme for the administration of wakf institutions and till then to appoint an administrator. Pursuant to the said Order, an administrator was appointed by the wakf board vide order at Annexure-E , dated 6-10- 2000. Writ petition No. 34511 of 2000 is filed seeking to quash the said order. In writ petition No. 26899 of 2000 in addition to seeking to quash the very same order produced as Annexure-J , the order at Annexure-J l approving the order Annexure-J passed by the wakf board is also sought to be quashed.

(3.) MR. Mohammed farooq, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the removal of the mutawallies amount to imposition of penalty as they cannot be appointed as such again. It is further contended that on the findings recorded by the enquiry committee, the wakf board was required to have taken a decision as contemplated under Section 64 (3) of the wakf act. But, the impugned order at Annexure-J l is not the decision of the board as held by the Supreme Court in the cases of p. l. Lakhanpal v Union of India and another and ramesh chandra sahu v N. Padhy on the other hand, it is only a confirmation of recommendation of the committee and it is not the decision of the board in the eye of law. According to the learned counsel, there is no application of mind by the board to the matter. The learned counsel further submits that in respect of the order at Annexure-J l no reasons are assigned and hence it is liable to be quashed.