KOKAB ABBAS Vs. SHIA CENTRAL BOARD OF WAQF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri W.H. Khan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.A. Qadeer, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shamim Ahmad learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and Sri Haidar Hussain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Kokab Abbas with the prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 3.9.2009 issued by the Administrative Officer (Respondent No. 3) certifying the appointment of Sayyed Hadi Raza (Respondent No. 4) as duly appointed Managing Mutawalli by the Shia Central Board of Waqf, the order dated 19.8.2009 passed by the Waqf Board, the order dated 21.8.2009 issued by the Administrative Officer of the Waqf Board in the form of Tauliat certificate and the order dated 16.9.2009 passed by the respondent Board regarding appointment of Sri Hadi Raza, the respondent No. 4 as Muntazim Mutawalli and Kokab Abbas the petitioner as Mustarak Muntazim Mutawalli.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders by which respondent Nos. 1 and 3 have given entire power to respondent No. 4 Sayyed Hadi Raza as Managing Mutawalli, Waqf Noorul Hassan to manage total financial powers solely have been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Kokab Abbas, who was earlier jointly managing all the affairs of Waqf and all the financial powers were being managed with joint signatures of petitioner and respondent No. 4. Originally property of Waqf Noorul Hassan was managed jointly by Moattar Raza (father of the petitioner) and respondent No. 4 Hadi Raza and after the death of Moattar Raza, the main Managing Mutawalli, his son Kokab Abbas (the petitioner) was nominated by the Board vide order dated 17.10.2005 as main Mutawalli while the names of respondent No. 4 Sayyed Hadi Raza and respondent No. 5 Khalak Haider were placed as Managing Mutawalli (2nd) and Mutawalli respectively to manage the affairs of the Waqf properties. Thereafter, the waqf properties were managed by all the three Mutawallis and the petitioner was empowered to manage the affairs jointly with respondent No. 4 and all the financial transactions were made by their joint signatures. The period of Tauliat was extended for a period of three years w.e.f. 16.10.2008 by the order dated 21.8.2009 by respondent No. 3, the Administrative Officer, Shia Central Board of Waqf, U.P. Lucknow, but the petitioner was surprised to note that in that order, the petitioner was shown as Additional Managing Mutawalli with respondent No. 5 Khalak Haider. As per order dated 1.9.2009 passed by the Chairman, Shia Central Board of Waqf, U.P. Lucknow, the name of the petitioner is shown as Additional Managing Mutawalli and total power of management was given to respondent No. 4 Sayyed Hadi Raza, that too, on the basis of one application dated 1.9.2009 alleged to have been sent by the petitioner while no such application was sent or moved by the petitioner and no such consent was given by the petitioner that the whole managing powers may be given to respondent No. 4.

(3.) It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as per application dated 11.8.2009, respondent No. 4 Sayyed Hadi Raza had requested to respondent No. 2 the Chief Executive Officer, Shia Central Board of Waqf, U.P. that the annuity of the waqf be given to him enabling him to manage the properties solely. By another application of the same date, i.e., 11.8.2009, respondent No. 4 requested to respondent No. 1 Shia Central Board of Waqf that he may be empowered solely to manage the accounts, property and bank's accounts which were earlier managed by him and the petitioner jointly. Without affording any opportunity, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 passed the impugned order on totally false statement of respondent No. 4. Section 23, 25 and 28 of the Waqf Act, 1995 empowers the Chief Executive Officer to exercise all or any of the powers conferred on him and thus the total power of administrative control of the Waqf properties lies with the Chief Executive Officer. Vide letter dated 30.1.2006, respondent No. 2 Chief Executive officer had clearly directed respondent No. 3, the Administrative Officer, not to issue any letter under his signature in pursuance to Government Orders as only the Chief Executive Officer is the authorized officer to sign any direction issued by the Board and thus the order issued by any officer other than the Chief Executive Officer is totally illegal and without jurisdiction. Section 65 of the Waqf Act clearly states that no action shall be taken without giving proper opportunity to show cause to any of the concerned Mutawallis. The intention of respondent No. 4 remained totally mala fide and he is trying to seize all the powers of management of accounts and properties of Waqf for which respondent No. 3 has also joined hands with respondent No. 4.