Syed Mudeer Aga vs The Chief Executive Officer on 23 March, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Syed Mudeer Aga vs The Chief Executive Officer on 23 March, 2011

Equivalent citations: 2012 (1) AIR KAR R 56, AIR 2012 (NOC) (SUPP) 1317 (KAR.), (2012) 2 CURCC 193, (2011) 6 KANT LJ 412, AIR 2012 (NOC) (SUPP) 1121 (KAR)

Bench: B.S.Patil

W'? 5569/20} 1

4. M11 JayaE<:umar S.PaiiL teamed Sewer Counsel 

for the petitioner has urged several grounds in  _

Challenge made, It is essentially eentended  Vif;é.pug::ee£'~.

order is passed by an ineonipetenfz.' auf;.?;1[e:%itfy.» 1_He 1*efe_rs,_.'£rj

Section 64{1}(i) and sub»sectio:1,e'{3a} of  8§l»"'ef..{he ":0 'g

contend that it is oniy the BOa1'C1"v!*C&T:V1;-l'1C1'1. hes; .{ri}:1' e e'bn;::Qeieney is
remove the Mutawaﬁi {rare  Vi:/{'L:"§axval'1V£"eeAﬁtinuQusiy
neglects his duties and  malfeasance?
misappiieation ef    relation to the
wakf er in  xévakf property, that too
after hoiding  a thew iiqatter in the prescribed



V ':0 be taken by a majority 05 not

manner send'-the de::E:f-R312.

less than tw;é;e_thirdVe  Q'f'?:h'€. f1'1€IHb€YS of the Board, He further

_ mvitee .;jt1iee..atten€1eﬁ if the Court {cs subsection {2} of Seetien

  efiize centend that even the power ta supersede the

e0'r::m;',ﬁ;ee. efvﬁzéfzzeagement is Ves'(ed with the Beard which has

 ﬁe be"-exe1jei;eeAé:"A}3y iseumg netiee Setting fsrth the reaeens fer

  pre}3e5_ed eeuori ané eaélmg uper: the Cemmittee ':0 Show

'   §;h3r smith aeééezz Shel} nevi be taken. Be aiee peinie 011*:

  35 335:? zszgb-seeiien {6} ef Seetiezz $? of {he A61, instead of

 ~ _4:.V;éupe:se§§ng {he Qiﬁfﬁfliiéflﬁﬁ ziziaﬁee eub»seeii{:zn {2}, {he Beaezi

{ea}: eemeve eey nzezzﬁses' éhrxeezf if ii, ﬁe  éheé eL:e}":

3;



XRJP 5569/201 1

far :*en1oval after the erreler sf renaoval is pazssecll"-l_::§yv?;fi1el' V'

Executive Officer. 'l'heref::>re, he eometiliisg' !*l'1e..«er:;:lre"preeeeiure

followed is illegal.

7. After the removal cf tlhe'lVpe:iti0ricrlxalengvvlixilth.V_Ha11.e:tlllel*_Vtp

member? the 2114 responelent hag lfidljcl;ed txi%e._eil1erV§31en1be:*s.
They are arrayed as resp'd_fi"<ient.§  glf1«.faCt, petitioner has
Challenged their appolnémegflfa Well V _ _ ..

8! Mr. Vivek _"Re_jddy; lVe'aﬁ13ed«...'l.Counsel appearing for

respondents 13  eielrlterljcls1'€l}at.__3Lil)~l*uleW(1} 0f Rule 56 of the

Rules stip_1_;late~sV {l'1E':'l":E:§X€§lluliV€ Officer shall issue malice iiiF0:m;?l§'.Vi€>_:'l'Ehe'«vllllulawalli concerned against Whom aetien is eclinlempleleld'~lil3.(le:,_llSecti0n 64 of the Act. Rule 3? of the Rules gleale llhelV'me.nner Qf inquiry to be held by the Cl'1ieVf V. E;xl*.eee1ii*l}e_QfflCe1;;W Tl'1eref0r'e, the Competent autherlty is Qffieer who has to conduct the inquiry and _ as pé1*..__Anl<:~ex_e1'ji*e§Rl the getiiianer is found is have not taken care pmieet the interest ef the Wald property as l l§l1;'é'3_<;;:{A:l: of the Walif inspite ef illegal {,'Ol'l-Sll'L2Cl§C!1§ reseriecl tee léy efne l%'l$8.?s.l+:'£3ar arzé iE"1e1*el}:::re the Chief E};ZE:C?.£lLl"2!'€ Office? Z333 _L.i'{>u::el him §§E.§§ll.:~§ es? the Said charge' if W? 5569,/2011 ?

9. M3: Kethwai, learned Caunsei far the gaard 3ubmVi*;:-3 that as per 816 cempziairzii fiied by the Additianal Liasen ﬁhé Beard theugh illegal cansiruciian had been eamz*:§€n:j:é§i wakf p:'0p€:'i:y, the gseiiiimaar hérsin diﬁ' :*?3\<:;i: t:§.ke "é.i':jz' in stepping the illegal cansiructian an<§£'1«¢ih:2§ft:T that paved Way far the iiiegal é{1:fis:1:ructié::V. He' .a1s:{§"€~:>::£er:és"V V that as the petiiisnar hag an ai:£:§f:':ati%?§ filing an appeal, as provicieé u::§«.¥::"'--:~¥;L1¥:--is=¢f:c%fii;§'%i'-Sectmn 84 cf the Act, bsfora the Tribunai h$"Ca¥}f:?@{3ﬁ Writ petition.

10. Having for the: parties and on Careful t'i":;:<?:&VV'*<%'n£iAz:*%§=:'":;:1$t€:1*ia1s 011 record, I find that the L'L?§'1"1'()"§}£:'f!. under sub~secI:i0n (3) of Section 54 ofthé A.c:fIrV,', -Igaxfihgifiecided to held an inquiry into the V9,}iegaV:i{3:1s:'1n§zde' éigai:1_:fsi:v the petitianer stating thai he had 'fjai§c:jf«i£* in 'é:i;,i'£,:;_ in properiy managing, administering and pr'0ie°;<51:§:::gv cf 33%? walsif p:°0pe:~ty, Patiiiener has b€€'ZE'} giiegeéef figgiséﬁirzg his duiies in as: preventing 0:16 §'vi.B.Ak¥:3ar u x V E123 véiiﬁgaﬁy starieci cezzstrucﬁezz 21:1 ﬁgs wakf §i"Qp€i"{.'_'§*'. ._%f_§ef;¢é; in-.6 §3€*§i'£§{'}T1£:' was iiabie far aciiexé ands: s:;{§3-$e{:i.:i§§: {1} é:"S%ciész: 64» af $225 zﬁgzct W? 5569;'2{}11 1 1 cause rzeiice issued' 'ﬂare is :10 discussion regardimzg the ciefenae iakan by the pgtitisner, Such a serimzs "

rarzzeval of a member frem the Managing €Z§C§::1133ii'i:é'€~ "

Muiawalli that :09 has-ieé on ailegationsw of ::1i'S;§:'€§i'ic§£':r:*£.,V":4_a:.:;r1{s_?: V' be dealt wiih Casualiy as is done i:i':.f£h£:--{ };i3"'V€3%§i'1i '57I:'3S'€VV impugned order. The impugned'sfé.¢r £5 iih.e:*r:f<3r£:._b2;£¢*in...1:{W.

16. For the reasons staL":t:(eg*i;i'3.b<§"x%é§' pe't'i§:iV<5n"i§ allowed. The impugned order is set4';a{s,§§:i:c:;' rﬁmcaval of the Petitioner as M§m?§§f:;5 .V$%*§}:1fifvv'vstands set aside, Consequently: in the place 0f the petii:ioner. ;éi$ide';' ' « ' Sﬁfé REESE":

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court