DELANIPUR MOSQUE AND MADARASA COMMITTEE Vs. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were the members of the Managing Committee of Delanipur Mosque and Madarasa Committee which was superseded by the Wakf Board. THE petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the order of supersession of the said committee passed by the Wakf Board. THEy have also challenged the legality of constitution of the present Wakf Board which passed the impugned order of supersession of the said committee. THE said order of supersession was notified in the newspaper on 2nd June, 2010 by the Lt. Governor, A and N Islands.

(2.) THE petitioners complained that reasonable opportunity of hearing was not given to them before superseding the Managing Committee of the said Wakf though Section 67(2) of the said Act, contemplates that such committee cannot be superseded without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to them. Be that as it may, this Court will have to consider as to how far the petitioners can challenge the propriety of the said order in the writ jurisdiction of this Court, in view of Section 67(4) of the said Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 67 of the said Act provides that any order made by the Board under Sub-section (2) of the said Act shall be final provided that any person aggrieved by the order made under sub-section (2) may, within sixty days from the date of the order, appeal to the Tribunal. THE said provision thus makes it clear that the order of supersession passed by the Board under Section 67(2) of the said Act is final subject to the decision of the Tribunal in appeal. Since the statute itself provides for a statutory appeal against such an order of supersession of the committee by the Board, an aggrieved party, in my view, ordinarily cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for challenging the order of supersession without availing of this relief by way of appeal under the statute.

(3.) SINCE the reply was not exhaustive, convincing and satisfactory, the Board decided to give a hearing to the President and Secretary of the said Board so that the dispute can be resolved amicably. The petitioners state that since they were called upon to participate in the hearing for resolving the dispute amicably, they were under the impression that the enquiry proceeding initiated on the basis of the said show cause notice was practically abandoned by the concerned authority and as such they did not address the Board on the allegations made against them in the said show cause notice, in the meeting held before the Board.