Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramzan Khan vs Madhya Pradesh Waqf Board on 9 March, 2022
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP No. 1491 of 2022
(RAMZAN KHAN AND OTHERS Vs MADHYA PRADESH WAQF BOARD)
Gwalior, Dated : 09-03-2022
Shri N.K. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate with Shri S.D.S. Bhadoriya,
leanred counsel for the petitioners.
Shri F.A. Shah, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard on IA No. 1723/2022, which an application for taking documents on record.
For the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed and the documents are taken on record.
Also heard on the question of Interim relief.
The counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned, which is passed by the Administrator of the Wakf Board is without jurisdiction and had been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing. It was argued that the Administrator is not having any jurisdiction to supersede a duly constituted Wakf Committee and also the order had not been passed adhering to the statutory provision as provided u/s 67 (2) of the Wakf Act, 1995.
Learned Counsel had relied upon an interim order dated 08/12/2021 passed by learned Single Bench at Principal seat in W.P. 26197/2021 (Hazi Hire Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others) and also on Single Bench decision dated 24/08/2021 passed in W.P. 15483/2021 (Anas Abbasi Vs. M.P. State Wakf Board through C.E.O., Taj Campus, Behind Taj-UL-Masjid, Bhopal), to bolster his submissions.
On the other hand counsel for the respondent-Wakf Board submits that the impugned order passed after endorsement of the Administrator, by Chief Executive Officer, M.P. Wakf Board was well within his jurisdiction, as the appointments of Administrator & C.E.O. are made pursuant to section 99 of the Wakf Act and in exercise of powers conferred u/s 99 (2) (b) of the Act the order of supersession was passed, which was well within their authority and competence, hence the impugned order Annexure P/1 is not pregnable on the ground of want of authority and jurisdiction.
2Upon hearing learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the order passed in WP 15483/2021 (supra), the reliance placed by the petitioner in the said judgment is misplaced as firstly though there is a reference of Full Bench decision i n Girja Shankar Shukla Vs. Sub Divisional Officer, Harda and others, reported in 1973 MPLJ 411, there is no decision with regard to the competency of the authority to pass the order and secondly the order reflects that since there was failure of principle of natural justice as without issuing notice or affording any opportunity of hearing the tenure of a legally constituted committee had been cut short, which is not the case here as regard being had to the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 99 of the Wakf Act, the order Annexure P/1 is passed by the authority by virtue of the office held and secondly, only after issuance of notice and calling for reply (though no reply was filed) the impugned order as passed, thus, the order so passed cannot be said to be without authority and jurisdiction.
Consequently, interim relief as prayed stands rejected. List the case in the week commencing 18th April, 2022.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE Pawar ASHISH PAWAR 2022.03.15 15:50:35 +05'30'