Judgment :- 1. The appeal is against the judgment of learned judge in O.P No 1117 of 1975 dismissing the said writ petition. The writ petition was by the Muthawalli of Peringathur Mosque to quash Ext. P3 order of the Wakf Board, directing his removal from the Muthawalliship. 2. Two main grounds of challenge against the order were raised by the writ petitioner viz. that the order had not been passed by a majority of "not less than three-fourth of the members of the Wakf Board", as required by S.43 (4) of the Wakf Act 1954; and secondly that the Board was wrong in having taken into account the audit report which had not matured into an order passed by the Board as required and contemplated by S.34 of the Act. The learned judge rejected both these contentions and dismissed the writ petition. 3. We are of the opinion that the first of the contentions of the petitioner-appellant is sound and must be accepted and that the second is groundless and without force. S.43 clause (4) of the Wakf Act reads. "No action shall be taken by the Board under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) unless it has held an inquiry into the matter in the prescribed manner and the decision has been taken by a majority of not less than three-fourth of the members of the Board." The petitioner's Counsel brought to our notice the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Alexander v. Director of Panchayats & Others (1971 KLT. 535), where S.54(13) of the Panchayats Act was considered by the Division Bench. The Division Bench stated thus: "4. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner then argued that even if the total strength of the Panchayat is taken as nine, he is entitled to succeed because five members have voted in favour of the resolution. The argument is that three-fifth of nine will work out to five and two-fifth and that since it is impossible to produce a two-fifth man, five will be enough. While it may be difficult, perhaps impossible to produce two-fifth of a man, it does not necessarily follow that five would be sufficient to constitute the majority visualised by Subsection (13) of S.54 Three-fourth of nine is five and two fifth and the only way there can be five and two fifth human beings is by having six. While it may be difficult, perhaps impossible to produce two-fifth of a man, it does not necessarily follow that five would be sufficient to constitute the majority visualised by Subsection (13) of S.54 Three-fourth of nine is five and two fifth and the only way there can be five and two fifth human beings is by having six. In this regard also, with great respect, we are unable to accept the reasoning of the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. On the same point, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the decision reported in 19o2 M. P. Law Journal 122 has taken the view which we consider, with great respect, is the correct view, and that is the view that we have indicated earlier." We are bound by the above statement of the principle made by the Division Bench of this Court. The total membership of the Wakf Board is eleven. It it seen from Ext. P3 that it is an embodiment of a decision taken by the Board at which eight members of the Board who were stated to have been present are set out at the outset of the order dated 15th Feb. 1975. The order is signed by the Secretary with the superscription: "By order". In Ground 12 of the writ petition, the petitioner stated as follows: "Ext. P3 is passed by 8 out of 11 members of the Board. It is lessthan 3/4 majority. So Ext. P3 is hit by sub-section 4 of S.43 of the Act". This clear averment was met in the counter-affidavit of the 1st respondent as follows: "Ground No. 12 is not valid in law. 8 out of 11 members constitute 3/4 majority as laid down in sub-section (4) to S, 43 of the Wakf Act". There was an additional counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent in which it was stated as follows: "2. I have filed my counter-affidavit in the above Original Petition on 7th April 1975. Due to inadvertence I happened to omit certain facts regarding Ground No. 12 of the Original Petition. On a scrutiny of relevant records, I find that Petition No. 5 of 1974 was posted to 28-12-1974 for final hearing at the meeting of the Board at Calicut. 9 members out of 11 were present for the hearing of the above said petition on 28-12-1974. On a scrutiny of relevant records, I find that Petition No. 5 of 1974 was posted to 28-12-1974 for final hearing at the meeting of the Board at Calicut. 9 members out of 11 were present for the hearing of the above said petition on 28-12-1974. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on either side and after scrutinising the statements and documents filed in the case, the Board unanimously decided to remove the mutawalli from his mutawalliship and posted the case for formal orders to 15-2-1975. It is in pursuance of the abovesaid decision that the order was passed by the Chairman at the meeting of the Board held at Ernakulam on 15-2-75". We might have been inclined, along with the learned judge, to accept the explanation stated in the additional counter-affidavit that Ext. P3 only embodies the decision taken on 28-12-1974 at Calicut by nine out of the eleven members of the Board who were present on that date at Calicut But there are inherent difficulties in our doing so. If Ex. P3 is only a record or an embodiment of the anterior decision on 28-12-1974, the least that we should expect is that the said record would set out the names and particulars of the nine members present on the date on which the decision was taken. This has not been done. Instead, we find that Ext. P3 opens with a list of eight members who are stated to have been present. We think this carries with it a refutation of the case put forward by the Board, which we are inclined to regard as an after-thought and nothing else. 3. Regarding the second contention, of the audit report having been taken into account in Ex. P3 we think there is no substance in it. S.34 of the Wakf Act reads: "34. The Board shall examine the auditor's report, and may call for the explanation of any person in regard to any matter mentioned therein, and shall pass such orders on the report as it thinks fit". We see no bar against its having been taken into account in proceedings for removal from the Muthawalliship after the same had been put to the writ petitioner and his explanation against the audit report had been received and had also been looked into. There is no force in this objection. 4. We see no bar against its having been taken into account in proceedings for removal from the Muthawalliship after the same had been put to the writ petitioner and his explanation against the audit report had been received and had also been looked into. There is no force in this objection. 4. But on the first of the grounds urged by Counsel for the appellant, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned judge and direct that O. P. No. 1117 of 1975 will stand allowed and Ex. P3 therein will stand quashed. There will be no order as to costs. We make it clear that nothing contained herein will preclude the Wakf Board from proceeding, if so advised, in accordance with law. Issue carbon copies of this judgment to counsel. Allowed.