ORDER The Board of Wakfs, West Bengal at its meeting held on 24th March, 1976 resolved that an administrative committee under S. 27(2)(iii) of the Bengal Wakf Act. 1934 be constituted with respondents 2 to 8 and the petitioner No. 1 as its members of a committee for the administration of the Wakf Estate of Late Mussamat Jasimunessa Bibi, Mahamadpur, P.S. Nawda, District Mushidabad. The Commissioner of Wakfs who in also the President of the said Board issued Order No. 18474 dated 26th March, 1976 conveying the said decision for constitution of an Administrative Committee for the aforesaid Wakf Estate. 2. The petitioners claiming to be the mutwallis of the said Wakf Estate of Late Mussamat Jasimunessa Bibi, obtained this Rule challenging of aforesaid resolution of the Board and the order of the Commissioner of Wakfs relating to appointment of the Administrative Committee in respect of the said Wakf. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate for the petitioner, had has firstly submitted that the Wakf in question was not a public one but the same was a private one, i.e., Wakf-al-al-Aulad. Therefore, according to Mr. Chakraborty, the impugned order for appointment of an Administrative Committee under S. 27(2)(iii) of the Bengal Wakfs Act read with Rule 4(1) of the Rules framed by the then provincial Government of Bengal in exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (c). (i) and (j) of Sub-s.(2) of S.84 of the Bengal Wakf Act, 1934 was invalid. Secondly, Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that the impugned order for appointment of a Committee of Management was passed in utter disregard of the principle of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioners as mutwallis of the Wakf were not given any opportunity of hearing either by the Commissioner of Wakfs or by the Board. 3. The first point raised on behalf of the petitioners may be disposed of on a short ground. It is not disputed that the Wakf Estate has been enrolled with a description that it is a religious or charitable one in the Register of Wakfs maintained by the Commissioner of Wakfs under S.45 of the Bengal Wakf Act. This Court under writ jurisdiction may not determine whether or not the said enrolment of the Wakf had been erroneously made. Thus, the Wakf Estate stands enrolled as a Wakf other than a Wakf al al Aulad. The petitioners themselves have disclosed that they have instituted. This Court under writ jurisdiction may not determine whether or not the said enrolment of the Wakf had been erroneously made. Thus, the Wakf Estate stands enrolled as a Wakf other than a Wakf al al Aulad. The petitioners themselves have disclosed that they have instituted. Title Suit No. 90 of 1975 in the Court of the subordinate Judge at Berhampore, inter alia, for declaration that Wakf Estate is a Wakf al al Aulad. The said suit is still pending and the Commissioner of Wakf, West Bengal had entered appearance in the said suit and had filed a written statement therein. Therefore, the undisputed position is, according to the enrolment in the office of the Commissioner of Wakf, the Wakf in question is not a private one for the benefit of the descendants of the Wakf and the question in now the subject matter of a civil, suit filed by the petitioners. Unless the Civil Court fids to the contrary, the Commissioner of Wakf and the Board are entitled to proceed on the basis that the instant Wakf in other than a Wakf al al Aulad. 4. The clause (iii) of Sub-s. (2) of S.27 of the Bengal Wakf Act while conferring power upon the Board to constitute committee where necessary for the administration of Wakfs, does not expressly provide for giving opportunity of hearing to the mutwallis of the Wakf estate concerned. The Rule 4(1) of the aforesaid Rules as published by the Notifications dated 28th November, 1936 also does not provide for giving show-cause notice and for giving opportunity of hearing to the mutwallis of the Wakf estate for supervision of which Committee of Management are constituted. 5. Absence of express provision for such hearing may not be conclusive on the question whether or not mutwalli has right of hearing before the constitution of a Committee of Management by the Board under the aforesaid Rule 4(1). Such opportunity of hearing to person affected may be implied from the nature of the order, the manner of exercise of the power and the consequence of the same etc. It is settled law that the rules of natural justice are not codified rules. The aim of rule of natural justice is to secure justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice. It is settled law that the rules of natural justice are not codified rules. The aim of rule of natural justice is to secure justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice. When an order, whether administrative or quasi-judicial, substantially affects prejudicially the status or right of a person, law implies an opportunity of hearing to such affected person before any order is made. Hearing, however, always does not mean personal hearing. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of the case, the frame-work of the law under which the enquiry is held and constitution of the tribunal or the body of persons appointed for the purpose. It is also settled law that rules of natural justice cannot over-ride a valid piece of evidence. Therefore, in a given case the legislature may expressly or impliedly exclude the application of the rules of natural justice (vide State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei AIR 1967 SC 1269 ; A.K. Kraipak & Ors v. Union of India & Ors AIR 1970 sc 150 . 6. The Bengal Wakf Act, 1934 was enacted to make provisions for proper management of Wakf properties in the then Bengal. The Board of Wakfs, constituted under S. 7 read with S.8 of the Act exercises powers of supervision and control over the Wakfs or the Wakf properties. The functions of the Board include constitution of Committees of Management in exercise of its powers under S. 27(2)(iii) of the Act. The Board under the said provision may constitute such Committees, where necessary for the administration of the Wakfs. The expression “necessary” implies the need or requirement. In other words, the Board has to form its opinion whether for due and proper administration, of the Wakf, a Committee of Management should be constituted. The powers of the Board under S. 27(2)(iii) of the Act may exercised for the benefits of the Wakf estate, for proper administration and for maintenance of Wakf properties. Section 27(2)(iii), however, does not amplify the circumstances under which it may be necessary to constitute a Committee of Management for a Wakf. The powers of the Board under S. 27(2)(iii) of the Act may exercised for the benefits of the Wakf estate, for proper administration and for maintenance of Wakf properties. Section 27(2)(iii), however, does not amplify the circumstances under which it may be necessary to constitute a Committee of Management for a Wakf. In order to carry out the purpose of the Bengal Wakf Act, the then provincial Government in exercise of its powers under S.84(2) clauses (c), (i) and (j) of the Act framed the rules to provide for delegation of powers by the Commissioner of Wakfs to the commissioner of Divisions, to Collectors and to other persons, for the regulation of functions of the Board and the Commissioner referred to in S. 27 of the said Act etc. Rule 4(1) of the said Rules prescribes the following guidelines for the exercise of the powers of the Board under S. 27(2)(iii) of the Act. 7. In order to carry out the said objects the Provincial Government by the aforesaid Rules under S.84(2), clauses (c). (i) and (j) has, inter alia, laid down the following guidelines for exercise of the powers of the Board under S. 27(2)(iii) of the Bengal Wakf Act. The said Rule 4(1) also lays down the manner in which the Board shall form its satisfaction about the necessity of constituting a Committee of Management for a Wakf. Such necessity would arise in case the Wakf is being “systematically mismanaged” or the properties of the Wakf are being ‘endangered’. “systematic mismanagement” means a series of or continued and persistent acts of mismanagement of the Wakf. The term “mismanagement” connotes wrong or incompetent management including acts of misfeasance by persons managing the Wakf estate. Similarly, a Committee of Management may be appointed when the properties of the Wakf estate have been endangered. This Rule 4(1) enjoins that the condition precedent for formation of such satisfaction by the Board shall be the existence of a report of the auditor or of the Commissioner to the effect that a Wakf al al Aulad is being systematically mismanaged or that is properties have been endangered. Thus, the Board is required to exercise its powers under S. 27(2)(iii) read with Rule 4(1) objectively and upon consideration of relevant materials about the systematic mismanagement or endangering of the Wakf properties. 8. Thus, the Board is required to exercise its powers under S. 27(2)(iii) read with Rule 4(1) objectively and upon consideration of relevant materials about the systematic mismanagement or endangering of the Wakf properties. 8. No doubt, “he mutwalis have no personal right in the property belonging to the Wakf ; the property is not vested in him, and he is not a trustee in the technical sense. He is merely a superintendent or manager” (vide Mulla’s Principles of Mahomedan Law (18th Edn.) paragraph 202). But Mulla in a notes below the said Paragraph 202 points out “Although the Wakf property is not vested in the mutwallis he has the same right of management as an individual owner. He is not bound to allow the use of the Wakf property for objects which thought laudable in themselves are not objects of the Wakf. The Muslim community cannot compel the mutwalls of a mosque to allow a school building to be erected on a site attached to the mosque(s). Again although a mutwallis is not a trustee to the sense in which the expression is used in English Law he has duties skin to those of a trustee….” 9. A Committee of Management appointed by the Board under S. 27(2)(iii) read with Rule 4(1) is to supervise the administration of the mutwalli and the latter is bound to carry out the directions of the Committee. The word “supervise” means to “oversee” or ‘superintend’. i.e., to direct to watch with authority the work of the mutwalli. I have already pointed out that the direction of the Committee of Management are binding upon the mutwallis, i.e., the mutwalli is bound to carry out the directions of the Committee of Management. Thus, an order appointing a Committee under S. 27(2)(iii) substantially affects the right of the mutwalli to manage the Wakf and its properties. 10. The expression “systematically mismanaged” may connote the alleged acts of mal-administration or misfeasance by the person managing a Wakf. In a particular case the Board may also form the opinion that the properties of the Wakf had been endangered by the mutwalli. These findings may cast a stigma upon the mutwalli. Appointment of a Committee of Management results in curbing the powers of the management of the mutwalli. 11. The Board under Rule 4(1) is to form its satisfaction on the report of the Commissioner or the Auditor. These findings may cast a stigma upon the mutwalli. Appointment of a Committee of Management results in curbing the powers of the management of the mutwalli. 11. The Board under Rule 4(1) is to form its satisfaction on the report of the Commissioner or the Auditor. Thus the said report of the Commissioner or the Auditor must relate to allegations of systematic mismanagement or the Wakf properties had been endangered. Unless the contents of the report of the Commissioner or the Auditor be disclosed to the mutwalli, he would be deprived of any opportunity of controverting the allegations of mismanagement or endangering the Wakf property which may be contained in such report. In my view, law does not intend that the Board may act ex parte upon the report by the Commissioner or the Auditor without affording any opportunity to the mutwalli to rebut the allegations made against him in the report. In a given case, the Commissioner or the Auditor may not have given any hearing to the mutwalli before reporting to the Board that a Wakf other than Wakf al al Aulad is being systematically mismanaged or that its properties have been endangered. But at the same time rule 4(1) does not contemplate an elaborate enquiry by the Board. After receipt of a report by the Commissioner or the Auditor, it would be sufficient compliance with the principles of natural justice if a copy of the said report or the substance thereof together with the notice are served upon the mutwalli to show-cause why a Committee shall not be constituted to supervise him administration. A personal hearing to the mutwalli is not necessary in every case. 12. Therefore, I am of the view that the aforesaid provisions impliedly provide for giving an opportunity of hearing to the mutwalli concerned before the Board appoints a Committee of Management in respect of a Wakf. It is in consonance with the principles of natural justice that the mutwalli should be given an opportunity to show-cause with reference to the report of the Commissioner or the Auditor before the Board decides whether a Committee of Management should be appointed to supervise the administration of the said mutwalli. It is in consonance with the principles of natural justice that the mutwalli should be given an opportunity to show-cause with reference to the report of the Commissioner or the Auditor before the Board decides whether a Committee of Management should be appointed to supervise the administration of the said mutwalli. Necessity of giving a show cause notice by the Board is imperative in view of the fact that the rules do not provide for giving any opportunity of hearing to the mutwalli by the Auditor or the Commissioner before they may report to the Board recommending appointment of a Committee of Management. The functions and determination of the Commissioner under S. 27(1) includes investigation of the nature and extent of the Wakfs and Wakf property, calling for accounts, returns and information from the mutwalli, giving direction for the proper management of the Wakf and generally doing all such acts as may be necessary for due control, maintenance and administration of Wakf. The Rule 1 of the Rules framed under S.84(2), clauses (c), (i) and (j) confer power upon the Commissioner to either himself inspect the Wakfs or depute any officer subordinate to him to inspect the Wakf locally. He may appoint with the approval of the Board one of its members to make such inspection or enquiry into the working of a Wakf Rule 1(2) enjoins that the mutwallis shall be bound to produce all books, records, maps, registered deeds etc. and other papers connected with the administration of the Wakf properties if so required by the Commissioner or any other person making inspection or enquiry under Sub-rule (1). The person making inspection under sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 are required to note the particulars mentioned in sub-rule (4) of Rule 1. Rule 2 and 3 of the Rule made by the then provincial Government by the aforesaid Notification No. 2718 Mis dated 28th November, 1936 relates to enquiries in connection with functions of the Board under clauses (1) and (iii) of sub-s. (2) of S.27 of the Bengal Wakf Act. Clearly, the enquiries contemplated under Rules 2 and 3 do not relate to the enquiries in connection with the appointment of a Committee for Administration of Wakfs under S. 27(2)(iii) of the Act. 13. In the instant case, the Board had entrusted Dr. Clearly, the enquiries contemplated under Rules 2 and 3 do not relate to the enquiries in connection with the appointment of a Committee for Administration of Wakfs under S. 27(2)(iii) of the Act. 13. In the instant case, the Board had entrusted Dr. Ekram-Ul-Haque Biswas to enquire into the complaints received against the mutwallis of the said Wakf Estate about mismanagement of the estate and mis-appropriation of usufructs. The said Ekram-Ul-Haque Biswas after enquiry submitted a report to the Commissioner of Wakf. 14. The respondents have pointed out that Dr. Haque had more than once given notices to the petitioner No. 1 for attending the enquiry. But the petitioner No. 1 did not attend the enquiry. Dr. Haque had visited Muhammadpur on 8.6.1975 to enquire into the affairs of the Wakf estate. Dr. Haque had submitted a detailed report stating that the mutwalli submitted false accounts to the Board of Wakfs and had misappropriated large portion of the incomes from the Wakf property. The mosque in question was not being maintained and it was lying uncared for. He recommended that either the mutwalli be changed or an Advisory Body should be set up. 15. Under the orders of the commissioner the matter was put up before the Board of Wakfs. The Board had appointed the aforesaid Committees of Management. The Board itself, however, did not give any hearing to the petitioner before constituting a Committee of Management, the Board was required to issue any show-cause notice to the mutwalli. In my view, such an opportunity of hearing to the mutwalli ought to have been given before the Board constituted the Committee of Management under S. 27(2)(iii) read with Rule 4(1). 16. In the instant case, the Board did not issue show-cause notice upon the petitioners before it decided to constitute a Committee of Management to supervise the administration of the Wakf. In fact, the Commissioner himself did not submit any report stating that the Wakf was being systematically mismanaged or its properties have been endangered. The Commissioner had forwarded the report of Dr. Haque with the suggested names of members of the Committee of Management. It is true that the petitioner No.1 himself did not avail of the opportunity extended by Dr. Haque who had enquired into the allegations against the Wakf estate. The Commissioner had forwarded the report of Dr. Haque with the suggested names of members of the Committee of Management. It is true that the petitioner No.1 himself did not avail of the opportunity extended by Dr. Haque who had enquired into the allegations against the Wakf estate. Still, the Board might have issued a notice upon the petitioner No. 1 asking him to show-cause why on the basis of the report of Dr. Haque forwarded by the Commissioner to the Board a Committee of Management should not by constituted to supervise the administration of the Wakf. 17. For the foregoing reasons, I propose to make the Rule absolute in part and direct the Board to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner No. 1 before deciding whether a Committee of Management should be constituted. There is another reason why the resolution of the Board constituting the Committee of Management cannot be upheld. A Committee of Management under S. 27(2)(iii) is to supervise the administration by the mutwalli. In the instant case, the petitioner No. 1 has been made a member of the Committee of Management. 18. I, accordingly, make this Rule absolute in part, quash the resolution of the Board of Wakf for constituting a Committee of Management in respect of Mussamat Jasimunnessa Wakf Estate. The respondents are commanded not give effect to the said resolution of the Board dated 24th March, 1976. The respondents would be at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law. In case, on the basis of any report of the Commissioner or the Auditor it is proposed to constitute a Committee of Management, the Board would issue a show-cause notice upon the petitioner No. 1 whose name is alone recorded as mutwalli in the Register of Wakf and, thereafter, decide in accordance with law whether or not a committee of Management shall be constituted to supervise the management of the aforesaid Wakf estate. I, however, express no opinion whether or not such a Committee of Management should be constituted. I, however, do not interfere with the report of Dr. Ekram Ul Haque Biswas referred to above and that of the Commissioner and the Board would be at liberty to consider what use shall be mad3e of he report of Dr. Haque. 19. There will be no order as to costs. I, however, do not interfere with the report of Dr. Ekram Ul Haque Biswas referred to above and that of the Commissioner and the Board would be at liberty to consider what use shall be mad3e of he report of Dr. Haque. 19. There will be no order as to costs. Let the operation of this order remain stayed for a period of three months from date. Rule made absolute in part.