ABDUL KHADAR SAHEB Vs. A P WAKF BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein, who was the Mutawalli and Muzawar of Dargah Hazrath Ali Akbar @ Masthanwali Guntakal, Anatapur District, challenges the resolution No. 1/80 passed by the 1st respondent. The Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board at its second meeting held on 26-11-1980 removing the petitioner as the Mutawalli and resolving to take the Dargah under the direct management of the Wakf Board under section 43-A of the Wakfs Act for a period of five years or till such time a suitable person is appointed as Muthawalli, which ever is earlier.

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows; On a complaint received from the Inspector-Auditor. Anantbapur against the petitioner, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 15-2-1978 framing the following charges: (1) That the Mutawalli has not carried out the directions of the Wakf Board under section 36 (a) (c) & (e) of the WAKF ACT, 1995 and as such he is liable to be penalised under section 41 of the WAKF ACT, 1995, (2) He has not submitted Budget accounts as required under Sections 31 and 32 of the WAKF ACT, 1995. (3) That he misappropriated and dealt improperly with the properties of the Wakf under Section 43 (c) of the Wakf Act, by not fixing locks to the Hundi boxes in the presence of the I.A. inspite of giving directions. (4) That he has not paid the entire Wakf fund contribution as required under section 46 of the WAKF ACT, 1995 as he is solely responsible for the same being the existing registered Mutawalli.

(3.) The petitioner alleges that though the charge memo was drawn up on 20-12-1977, it was served on him only on 15-4-1980, and that the petitioner requested through his Advocate 15 days time for submitting the explanation, and that he submitted his explanation on 3-11-1980 denying all the charges and further stating that no action could be initiated against him without affording opportunity to disprove the allegations made in the charge memo. No enquiry was held, but the impugned order was passed holding that all the charges were proved and, accordingly, the Board resolved to remove the petitioner as Mutawalii and take over direct management of the institution. The 3rd respondent, the Assessor of the Wakf Board, was directed to take charge of the Dargah on behalf of the Wakf, Board. This resolution was passed by 9 members of the Wakf Board, who were present it the meeting. The petitioner challenges this resolution mainly on the ground that no enquiry was held as required by Rule 23 read with section 43 of the Wakfs Act, and, therefore, the impugned resolution of the Board is illegal. In the writ petition, the petitioner stated that all the charges framed against him were not sustainable.