SHAMIM AHMED KHAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by the Chairman, Bihar State Sunni Waqf Board dated 21-10-1986 (Annexure-2) whereby on the basis of the charges proved the petitioner has been removed from the office of Mutawalli of the Wakf known as Agthu Wakf Estate No. 1556 in the district of Gaya. He has also challenged the appellate order passed by the Minister,Wakf, Government of Bihar, dated 6-3-1987, which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. He has further prayed that the respondents be restrained from interfering with the petitioner's management of the Wakf in question.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the aforesaid Wakf was established by the Waqifa as early as in the year 1987. The Wakf deed has been annexed as Annexure-3 which lays down the manner in which the Mutawallis were to be appointed. The Waqifa was to remain Mutawalli during her life time to be succeeded by the eldest son of Bibi Aisha, namely, Ghulam Mujtaba Khan (respondent No. 10). It appears that Ghulam Mujtaba Khan held the office of Mutawalli, but on account of certain charges proved against him, he was also removed from the office of Mutawalli. The removal of aforesaid Ghulam Mujtaba Khan was challenged before this Court in a writ petition. Since the petitioner, in the meantime, was appointed as Mutawalli, the matter was not pressed further before this Court. Unfortunately, certain complaints were made against the petitioner while he was acting as Mutawalli and the same were enquired into by the Chairman of the Wakf Board. His preliminary enquiry revealed that the charges were not baseless. Thereafter charges were framed against the petitioner and served upon him, to which he filed his show cause. It appears from the order of the Chairman of the Wakf Board that the petitioner submitted his show-cause on 4-10-1985 and supplemented the same with another show-cause dated 19-3-1986. Unfortunately, the show cause petitions have not been placed on record and, therefore, we have to rely upon the impugned orders to cull out the defence of the petitioner. As many as nine charges were framed against the petitioner, but only four of them could be proved, namely, charge Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5. The Chairman of the Wakf Board came to the conclusion that in view of the aforesaid charges being established, it was apparent that great loss had been caused to the interest of the Wakf/and greater loss was likely to be caused to the interest of the Wakf. If there was delay in removing the petitioner from the Motwalliship of the said Wakf estate. He, therefore, in exercise of power delegated to him by the Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board, removed the petitioner from the Motwalliship of the Wakf estate. After considering other relevant circumstances he came to the conclusion that even the younger brother of the petitioner was not suitable for appointment as Mutawalli of the Wakf estate. He, therefore, constituted a committee of five members including the President and Secretary to manage the affairs of the Wakf estate. The Committee included the father of the petitioner, who was the former Mutawalli.

(3.) The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of the Chairman of the Wakf Board, preferred an appeal to the Minister of Wakf, Government of Bihar, which, as earlier noticed was dismissed by order dated 6-3-1987 (Annexure-1). The Minister, Wakf, substantially affirmed the findings recorded by the Chairman, Wakf Board.