RIYAZ AHMAD Vs. MADHYA PRADESH WAKF BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) Admittedly, the order under challenge is an appealable order. Accordingly, counsel for petitioner was repeatedly suggested that since there is no good ground to bypass the statutory remedy, therefore, petitioner may prefer an appeal before the Waqf Tribunal but the counsel for petitioner insisted that since the order under challenge has been passed without jurisdiction, therefore, the matter should be heard and he should not be relegated back to appeal. Under these circumstances, counsel for petitioner was permitted to argue the matter on merits.

(3.) By referring to order dtd. 14/3/2024, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner is working as Mutawalli whereas he has been removed from the post of Chairperson, District Waqf Committee, Shahdol. It is submitted that show cause notice was issued under Sec. 67(6) of Waqf Act and the impugned order has also been passed under the said Sec. which is applicable only to member of District Waqf Committee and not to the Chairperson of District Waqf Committee, therefore, the order under challenge is bad in law. It is further submitted that allegations on the basis of which petitioner has been removed from the post of Chairperson, District Waqf Committee, Shahdol is false. In fact eviction proceedings were going on against one Taj Khan and possession of said shop was handed over by Taj Khan to petitioner and accordingly, possession panchnama was also prepared. It is submitted that thereafter petitioner informed Tehsildar, Shahdol to drop the eviction proceedings on the ground that Taj Khan has already handed over the vacant possession of the property in dispute. It is further submitted that Mutawalli can be removed under Sec. 64 of Waqf Act but power has been exercised under Sec. 67(6) of Waqf Act. It is further submitted that enquiry report was not supplied by which it was reported that Taj Khan is still in possession of shop in question.