ORDER The petitioner's case as made out in the writ application, inter alia, is that Sk. Ahmedi was the Mutwalli of the disputed Wakf estate and on his death in the year 1960, the Mutwalliship of the Khankah Wakf estate devolved on the petitioner and on becoming the Mutwalli, the petitioner enrolled the properties mentioned in the Wakf Deed 17th February, 1955 in the office of the Commissioner of Wakfs, West Bengal, the respondent No. 2 under Enrolment Case No. 13867. Subsequently, on the basis of an application made by some third parties a "Committee Mutwallis" was appointed by the respondent No, 2 and further enrolment of the Wakf estate was also made by the said respondent. The petitioner made an application thereafter before the respondent No.2 for cancellation of the subsequent enrolment and appointment of the said Committee Mutwallis and after hearing the parties, on 5th August, 1986, the Deputy Commissioner of Wakfs, West Bengal, cancelled the said subsequent enrolment application but he directed that the allegations regarding the alleged mismanagement against the petitioner would be considered in a separate hearing in E.C. No. 13867, which was the enrolment number of !he petitioner's Wakf estate. On 20th June, 1987, the Commissioner of Wakfs, West Bengal, vide his Memo Ko. 400 dated 20th June, 1987, directed the petitioner to show cause by 7th May, 1987, as to why the petitioner should not be removed from the Mutwaliship of the Wakf estate and the petitioner duly replied to the said show cause notice, but surprisingly enough, without any notice to the petitioner, the respondent No.2 referred the matter to the Board of Wakfs, West Bengal, the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 in its turn, by a resolution dated 16th November. 1987, referred the matter to Shri Mahboob Zahedi the respondent No.3 and one of the members of the respondent No. 1 and also to the Sabhadipari, Burdwan Zila Parishad, for discussion with local people for formation of an Administrative Committee, in respect of all the three Wakf Estates created by late Sk. Ahmedi. 2. According to the petitioner, the respondent no. 3, however, without any discussion, suggestion. Suggested a Committee of his own choice, including the petitioner and Abdul Quader, who was the Mutwalli in respect of the Wakf of the Mosque and the other members of. Ahmedi. 2. According to the petitioner, the respondent no. 3, however, without any discussion, suggestion. Suggested a Committee of his own choice, including the petitioner and Abdul Quader, who was the Mutwalli in respect of the Wakf of the Mosque and the other members of. the proposed Committee were the persons who had illegally enrolled the Wakf estate for a second time earlier under E.C. no. l4844, which was, however, subsequently cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner of Wakfs, West Bengal as referred to above and all on a sudden the respondent no.1 adopted a resolution on 22nd September, 1988, approving the said Administrative Committee in respect of all the three Wakf Estates of Sk Ahmedi, in a highly arbitrary manner. The petitioner's further case is that the aforesaid acts of the respondent nos. I and 2 are highly illegal and are in violation of the provisions of s. 28 of the Bengal Wakf Act, and also the Rules framed by the State Government regarding the formation of such Administrative Committee, under s.84 of the Bengal Wakfs Act, 1934 and the resolution of the respondent no.1 as stated alove is also cryptic without giving any cogent reason or ground for the said approval and accordingly, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid acts of the respondents in this Civil Order on various grounds. 3. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Mr. Kabir, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the respondents were to act in the present case strictly in terms of s. 28 of the Bengal Wakfs Act, 1934 which has put restrictions on the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner and the Board of Wakf in exercising their powers under the said Act in respect of any Wakf as they shall have to act in conformity with the directions of the Wakf, considering the purposes of Wakf and any usage or custom of the Wakf sanctioned by the Islamic law in general and also according to the provisions of the Mohammedan law relating to Wakf. According to Mr. Kabir therefore, since the Wokif in the Deed of Wakf had clearly stated that relatives of the Wakif should not be allowed to interfere with the administration of the Wakf estate the Administrative Committee set up by the respondent no. 3 is wholly illegal inasmuch as most of the members of such Committee are the relatives of the Wokif Sk. Kabir therefore, since the Wokif in the Deed of Wakf had clearly stated that relatives of the Wakif should not be allowed to interfere with the administration of the Wakf estate the Administrative Committee set up by the respondent no. 3 is wholly illegal inasmuch as most of the members of such Committee are the relatives of the Wokif Sk. Ahmedi. Mr. Kabir further submits that although in the proviso to the said s.28, it is stated that in furtherance of the objects of the Wakf or in the interest of the. beneficiaries, the Board may revise any provision in the Wakf deed which become inoperative or impossible of execution owing to efflux of time or changed conditions, no such revision shall be made without giving the parties affected an opportunity of being heard, and thus from the language of the said proviso it is clear that the Board does not enjoy any unbridled power to revise any provision of the Wakf deed at its sweet will and the reasoning given by the Board for appointment of an Administrative Committee in the present case, according to Mr. Kabir, does not come within the purview of the said proviso. Mr. Kabir lastly submits that under s. 84 of the Bengal Wakf Act, 1934, the State Government may make rules for carrying out the purpose of the said Act and under Rule 4(1) of the Rules, framed under the said Act vide Notification no. 2718 M/s. dated 28th November, 1936 by the State Government, it is provided that if the Board is satisfied from the report of the Auditor or of the Commissioner of the Wakfs, that a Wakf, other than a wakf al-al-auled. is being systematically mismanaged or that it's properties have been endangered, the Board may constitute a committee to supervise the administration of the Mutwalli and the latter shall be bound to carry out the direction of the Committee so appointed, in such matters, but such Committee should consist of not more than three in number and Mr. Kabir contends that composition of the Administrative Committee in the present case consisting of more than three persons is thus made in violation of the provisions of the said Rule 4(1). 4. Mr. Ghosh, learned Counsel. appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 to 13, however, supports the impugned actions of the respondent nos. Kabir contends that composition of the Administrative Committee in the present case consisting of more than three persons is thus made in violation of the provisions of the said Rule 4(1). 4. Mr. Ghosh, learned Counsel. appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 to 13, however, supports the impugned actions of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and submits that since the petitioner was not managing the affairs of wakf estate properly and as there were serious allegations against him, in the fitness of things, the. Board had rightly appointed the Administrative Committee and also in accordance with law and sitting in the writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot go into the disputed questions facts of the case as to see whether the petitioner's alleged misdeeds have -been proved or not. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned Counsel, I, however, find that there is much substance in the contentions as raised by Mr. Kabir regarding formation of the disputed Administrative Committee in violation of the aforesaid Rule 4(1). No doubt, neither the Wakf Deed nor the resolution adopted by the Body in constituting the Administrative Committee have been placed before this Court except the decisions of the Board being Annexures "G" and "I" from which, however, it does not appear as to whether the Wakif had really put any restriction in the deed itself regarding involvement of the relatives of the Wakif in the administration of the Wakf estate but one thing is clear from the Board's' resolution dated 22nd September, 1988 a copy of which is made Annexure "G" to the writ application that it does not appear therefrom at all as to whether the Board after being satisfied from the audit report or of the Commissioner that the disputed Wakf was being systematically mismanaged by the petitioner or that its properties were being endangered by the petitioner had appointed the Administrative Committee in question. The said resolutions merely stated that the mailer was placed and discussed and the Board approved the Administrative Committee. There is no whisper in the said resolution that the Administrative Committee was approved by the Board on the ground that the Board had been satisfied from the audit report or of the Commissioner of Wakf that the Wakf was being systematically mismanaged by the Mutwalli. There is no whisper in the said resolution that the Administrative Committee was approved by the Board on the ground that the Board had been satisfied from the audit report or of the Commissioner of Wakf that the Wakf was being systematically mismanaged by the Mutwalli. The respondent No.4 to 13, however, sought to justify the appointment of the Administrative Committee by raising several allegations against the petitioner in this affidavit in opposition, but since the resolution of the Board dated 22nd September, 1988 (Annexure ‘G’) does not disclose any reason at all for the appointment of the disputed Administrative Committee, said vital defects cannot be cured by giving explanations in the affidavit-in-opposition when the disputed adopted resolution is wholly a non-speaking resolution. 6. So far as the composition of the disputed Administrative Committee is concerned, the Notification No. 424 dated 3rd April, 1939 issued issued by the Government of Bengal (Education (Misc.) (Department) may be referred to, by which, the Words 'more than three in number' as was in the earlier Notification No. 2718 Mis. dated 28th November, 1936 issued by the Government of Bengal (Ministry of Education), had been omitted and hence the formation of the disputed Administrative Committee consisting of eleven members as was done or approved by the Board vide its impugned resolution dated 22nd September, 1988, however, cannot be called as illegal on that ground. 7. Such being the position, the said Administrative Committee cannot be sustained in law and the impugned Annexures being 'G' and 'I' to the writ application are quashed being Violative of the statutory provisions of law for the reasons as stated above. The 'matter is, however, referred back to the Board of Wakf, West Bengal for reconsideration of the matter for setting up of an Administrative Committee for the management of the Wakf estate and I make no observation regarding the allegations made against the petitioner for his alleged mismanagement of the wakf estate as Mutwalli and I keep all questions open to be decided by the Board in accordance with law. 8. The Civil Order is thus disposed of as above without any order as to costs. If certified copy of this order is applied for the office is to see whether the same is to be given to the applicant within 3 weeks from the" date of putting the requisite for such copy. 8. The Civil Order is thus disposed of as above without any order as to costs. If certified copy of this order is applied for the office is to see whether the same is to be given to the applicant within 3 weeks from the" date of putting the requisite for such copy. Impugned order quashed; matter referred back for reconsideration.