KERALA WAKF BOARD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st petitioner is the Kerala Wakf Board (the "Board") and the 2nd petitioner is its Chairman, They challenging Ext. P21 order dated 29-8-1983 whereby the Board was superseded by the Govt. in purported exercise of its power under S.64(1) of the Wakf Act, 1954 (the "Act") with effect from the date of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette. operative part of Ext. P21 reads :

(2.) I shall briefly refer to the facts which have given rise to the impugned order. On 30-1-1982 V. M. Shamsuddin (additional respondent) filed a petition before the Government raising certain allegations against the Board. Those are the 15 allegations enumerated in Ext. P21. It is unnecessary to extract them here, for only 5 of them were ultimately dealt with by the Government pursuant to which the impugned order was made. Due opportunity was given to the Board by Exts. P3, P4 and P4(a) to submit its explanation and defence to the allegations made by Shamsuddin. The Board submitted detailed explanations by Exts. P5 and P6. In regard to 5 out of the 15 allegations, the Government came to the conclusion that there was substance in them. The Government is thus stated to have formed an opinion that "the Board has persistently violated the duties imposed upon it and persistently abused its powers to the detriment of the Wakf Board". It was on the basis of that opinion that the order of supersession is stated to have been made. The specific period of supersession has not been mentioned in the order except to say that it is to last until the new Board is reconstituted by the Government.

(3.) The present Board was constituted in 27-11-1980 and its members took office on 19-12-1980. It is stated that the 2nd petitioner is a member of the All India Muslim League, a party that opposes the Indian Union Muslim League which is a constituent of the State Government. It is alleged that Shamsuddin who is a supporter of the latter party filed his petition at its instance to discredit the 2nd petitioner and other members of the Board many of whom belong to one or other of the opposition parties. The petitioners allege that the impugned order was a mala fide exercise of power by the Government to dislodge the present members of the Board. However, in the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioners Shri Chandrasekharan fairly submitted that the petitioners had no case that the Revenue Secretary, who made Ext. P21 on behalf of the Government, entertained any personal ill will, animosity or malice towards them. I would like to say that on a perusal of the relevant records, which have been placed before me by the Advocate General, I am fully satisfied that the concerned officer who made Ext. P21 acted in utmost good faith and without the slightest personal ill will or malice towards the petitioners. The question, however, is whether the impugned order is valid. An order is invalid if it is ultra vires either because of excess or abuse of power.