ABHIJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner seeks orders quashing the resolution of the Delhi Wakf Board (hereafter "the Board") dated 7-11-1994 and the order dated 2-8- 1996 removing it from its Mutwalliship.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Waqf Hazi Abdul Qayyum (hereinafter, the 'Waqf') was established in year 1902 in respect of certain properties. The appellant Committee started managing them them since 6.4.1985. A complaint was received from the Citizen Action Committee, against the appellant-Committee. On receipt of this complaint, the Board initiated an inquiry and appointed Shri Shakil Ahmed Syed, Advocate, Supreme Court as the Inquiry Officer, through its resolution of 19.3.1991. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 18.10.1994. The findings were considered and accepted; the Board confirmed them through its resolution dated 7.11.1994. The Petitioner-Committee was therefore dissolved and the Board resumed direct management of the Waqf properties.

(3.) The decision of the Board to dissolve the Petitioner and take over the management, was challenged as motivated, at the instance of unscruplous elements with vested interests, led by the Chairman of the Board, Shri Siraj Pracha. It is averred that the father of Shri Pracha, had been removed from the Mutawalliship of the Waqf by the Board, in 1978; his appeal against that order was rejected by the Lt. Governor, on 9.8.1978. The decision was further confirmed by this Court and the Supreme Court as well. It is alleged that Shri Siraj Pracha, was the attorney of his father and had represented his case before the law courts, and was in managing the affairs of the Waqf without any legal sanction. It is averred that the Waqf Board erred in law, in taking cognizance of a false complaint from respondent No.2, which did not have any locus standi in that regard. The manner of appointment of inquiry officer, conduct of proceedings by the inquiry officer, his findings, as well as the resolution of the Board have been challenged as illegal. It is also alleged that the Board's decision was wrongly recorded.