SHAFIQ UR REHAMAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the Orders at Annexures-A and D. Vide Annexure-A the Administrator is appointed for the administration of the Muslim Hostel Madeena Building, Station Road, Kalaburagi District of which the petitioner claims to be the Mutawalli. Vide Annexure-D, the revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order at Annexure-A is dismissed.

(2.) Sri. Ameetkumar Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order at Annexure-A is in utter violation of the procedure and also principles of natural justice. It is not a speaking order also. The revision petition was dismissed under the assumption that the petition was not maintainable. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3/authority is relying on the audit report of 2013-14 for which he had already submitted his reply. There is no consideration of the reply submitted by him in the order at Annexure-A. Unless office of Mutawalli is vacated by following the procedure contemplated under Sec. 64 of Wakf Act, 1995 (for short 'Act' ) an administrator cannot be appointed. No such enquiry under the provisions of Sec. 64 of the Act was held before passing the order at Annexure-A. He being the hereditary Mutawalli, same having been accepted by the Board, long back now the Board in projecting at Annexure-A as if enquiry was held. Hence both Annexures-A and D are liable to be quashed.

(3.) Sri. Liyaqat Fareed Ustad, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 - WAKF submits that there was serious allegation of mismanagement and misappropriation against the petitioner. Annexure-A depicts that a notice in Form-79 was issued to the petitioner on the basis of Audit report and his objection to the same was considered. Enquiry as contemplated under Sec. 64 of the Act does not always mean that a trial has to be held. It is enough that the petitioner is informed of the allegations against him and given opportunity to file objections. The allegations made in Annexure-A is passed on consideration of his objection statement and it cannot be held that Annexure-A is passed without holding enquiry. So far Annexure-D is concerned, the revisional authority on assessment of the case of the petitioner, did not find any merits in his case. Hence revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Wherefore, both orders may be sustained and petition may be dismissed.