Karnataka High Court
P. Mohamad Dastagir vs Karnataka Board Of Wakfs, Bangalore And ... on 27 January, 1998
Equivalent citations: AIR1998KANT297, 1998(3)KARLJ289, AIR 1998 KARNATAKA 297, (1998) 3 KANT LJ 289
Author: Tirath S. Thakur
Bench: Tirath S. Thakur
ORDER
1. Jamia Masjid, Gandhi Bazaar, Shimoga, is a Wakf governed by the Wakf Act, 1995. Its Management appears to have been taken over by the respondent/Wakf Board, and an Administrator for looking after the affairs of the Masjid on behalf of the Board appointed. By an order dated 26th July, 1997, the then Administrator namely the Dist. Wakf Committee, Shimoga, was replaced by the petitioner. Eversince the petitioner has been it appears working as the Administrator of the Masjid discharging managerial duties in respect thereof on behalf of the Wakf Board. By an order dated 21st of January, 1998, the Wakf Board has now relieved the petitioner of his duties and appointed one Sri H.M. Mujeeb Ahmed, Administrator, District Wakf Advisory Committee, Shimoga, as the Administrator of the Masjid. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a certiorari quashing the same.
2. Mr. Tajuddin, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the removal of the petitioner from the position of the Administrator of the Wakf was in violation of Section 65 of the Wakf Act, 1995 inasmuch as no reasons had been recorded by the Wakf Board in support of the said order. Section 65 of the Wakf Act to the extent the same is relevant for our purposes reads as under.--
"Where no suitable person is available for appointment as mutawalli of a wakf, or where the Board is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, that the filling up of the vacancy in the office of a mutawalli is prejudicial to the interests of the Wakf, the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, assume direct management of the Wakf for such period or periods, not exceeding five years in the aggregate, as may be specified in the notification".
3. A bare reading of the above would show that the requirement of recording reasons in writing, is applicable only at the stage of take over by the Board of the Management of a Wakf. The provision makes it abundantly clear that the management of a Wakf can be taken over by the Board where the Board is satisfied for reasons to be recorded that the filling up of the vacancy in the office of the Mutawalli is prejudicial to the interests of the Wakf, or no suitable person is available for appointment as a Mutawalli. In other words, the necessity for recording the reasons is relatable only to the stage when the Board first decides to assume the management of the Wakf. That requirement does not extend to subsequent stages where the Board may by order relieve or replace the existing Administrator and appoint another person in that position. The Management of the Wakf was taken over by the Board it appears much before the petitioner's appointment, that is before the petitioner was appointed as the Administrator, the Management of the Wakf was already in the hands of the Board who had appointed an Administrator for the purpose. The order appointing the petitioner in place of the said Administrator, also did not indicate any reason for the petitioner's appointment, or the removal of his predecessor, nor was there any such requirement in law. The position in so far as the impugned order is concerned, can therefore be no different. Here also, the order relieving the petitioner and appointing Sri H.M. Mujeeb Ahmed, in his place does not record any reasons nor was in my opinion the recording of any such reasons essential for the making of a valid order.
4. That apart the order appointing the petitioner as administrator did not carry with it any security of tenure for him. It is not disputed that the appointment was purely honorary and no emoluments or other financial gains accrued to him as the Administrator. The appointment was therefore only in the nature of nominating the petitioner as an Agent of the Board, to look after the affairs of the Masjid. If the petitioner was doing so it was not for the sake of any monetary gain or other advantage, but only in the spirit of service to the Masjid. Now that the Board has in its widsom, considered it proper to terminate the said appointment and appoint another person in his place, the petitioner can make no grievance. There is no merit in this writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed.