Judgment B. P. Singh, Dhannpal Sinha, JJ. 1. The petitioner herein has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by the Chairman, Bihar State Sunni Waqf board dated 21-10-1986 (Annexure-2)whereby on the basis of the charges proved the petitioner has been removed from the office of Mutawalli of the Wakf known as agthu Wakf Estate No.1556 in the district of Gaya. He has also challenged the appellate order passed by the Minister,wakf, government of Bihar, dated 6-3-1987, which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. He has further prayed that the respondents be restrained from interfering with the petitioners management of the Wakf in question. 2. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid Wakf was established by the waqifa as early as in the year 1987. The wakf deed has been annexed as Annexure-3 which lays down the manner in which the Mutawallis were to be appointed. The waqifa was to remain Mutawalli during her life time to be succeeded by the eldest son of Bibi Aisha, namely, Ghulam Mujtaba Khan (respondent No.10 ). It appears that Ghulam Mujtaba Khan held the office of Mutawalli, but on account of certain charges proved against him, he was also removed from the office of Mutawalli. The removal of aforesaid Ghulam Mujtaba khan was challenged before this Court in a writ petition. Since the petitioner, in the meantime, was appointed as Mutawalli, the matter was not pressed further before this Court. Unfortunately, certain complaints were made against the petitioner while he was acting as Mutawalli and the same were enquired into by the Chairman of the Wakf Board. His preliminary enquiry revealed that the charges were not baseless. Thereafter charges were framed against the petitioner and served upon him, to which he filed his show cause. It appears from the order of the Chairman of the Wakf Board that the petitioner submitted his show-cause on 4-10-1985 and supplemented the same with another show-cause dated 19-3-1986. Unfortunately, the show cause petitions have not been placed on record and, therefore, we have to rely upon the impugned orders to cull out the defence of the petitioner. As many as nine charges were framed against the petitioner, but only four of them could be proved, namely, charge Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5. Unfortunately, the show cause petitions have not been placed on record and, therefore, we have to rely upon the impugned orders to cull out the defence of the petitioner. As many as nine charges were framed against the petitioner, but only four of them could be proved, namely, charge Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5. The Chairman of the Wakf Board came to the conclusion that in view of the aforesaid charges being established, it was apparent that great loss had been caused to the interest of the Wakf/and greater loss was likely to be caused to the interest of the wakf. If there was delay in removing the petitioner from the Motwalliship of the said Wakf estate. He, therefore, in exercise of power delegated to him by the Bihar state Sunni Wakf Board, removed the petitioner from the Motwalliship of the wakf estate. After considering other relevant circumstances he came to the conclusion that even the younger brother of the petitioner was not suitable for appointment as mutawalli of the Wakf estate. He, therefore, constituted a committee of five members including the president and Secretary to manage the affairs of the Wakf estate. The Committee included the father of the petitioner, who was the former Mutawalli. 3. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of the Chairman of the Wakf Board, preferred an appeal to the Minister of wakf, Government of Bihar, which, as earlier noticed was dismissed by order dated 6-3-1987 (Annexure-1 ). The Minister, wakf, substantially affirmed the findings recorded by the Chairman, Wakf Board. 4. From Annexure-2, the order of the chairman, Wakf Board, it appears that the first charge was to the effect that the petitioner had converted the Wakf property bearing holding No.12 (old) and 13 and 14 (new) into his. personal property. The case of the petitioner was that the said property had been permanently settled by bibi Qabulatunnisa, the then Motawalli, in favour of one Khaliqua Khatoon. The aforesaid Khaliqua Khatoon came in possession of the property and continued in possession thereof for several years. According to the Counsel for the petitioner the then Motwalli made a permanent settlement of the property in question in the year 1956, and the petitioner purchased the said property from the settlee in the year 1973, much before he became a motawalli in the year 1984. According to the Counsel for the petitioner the then Motwalli made a permanent settlement of the property in question in the year 1956, and the petitioner purchased the said property from the settlee in the year 1973, much before he became a motawalli in the year 1984. These facts are not disputed, but the Chairman of the wakf Board found that since the property, which was Wakf property, now stands recorded in the name of the petitioner and his brother, it was proof of the fact that the petitioner had converted the Wakf property into his personal property which proved the charge. 5. Counsel submitted that the finding on this charge recorded by the Chairman of the Wakf Board is not justified. As early as in the year 1956 the property was permanently settled by the then Motawallia. The petitioner and his brother purchased the said property in the year 1973 i. e. after 17 years. The permanent settlee had acquired the right to the property by adverse possession. The petitioner at the time of purchase was not Motawalli. He, therefore, submitted that the charge that the petitioner had converted into personal property what was in reality the Wakf property is not true. In any event, the petitioner had not alienated the property which was alienated as early as in the year 1956 by the then Motwallia. We are inclined to agree with learned Counsel for the appellant that on the basis of the facts found, it cannot be said that the petitioner had alienated the property or that he had converted into personal property what was the Wakf property. The property already stood alienated and the permanent settlee had acquired title by adverse possession. It was only thereafte. that the petitioner and his brother purchased the property by registered sale-deed. In fact, the petitioner became Motawalli eleven years thereafter. We, therefore, do not attach much importance to the findings recorded by the chairman, Wakf Board because regardless of the question as to whether the settlee acquired title by adverse possession, or by virtue of the settlement made in her favour by the Motawalli without the approval of the Majlis, the question which fell for consideration was whether the petitioner as motawalli had committed any misconduct of the nature referred to in Sec.43 of the Wakf Act, 1954 in this regard. That not being the case, it could not be held that a ground was made out by proving this charge for removal of the petitioner as Motawalli. 6. We, however, notice the objection on behalf of the beneficiaries that the law does not prescribe any limitation for recovery of possession of Wakf property which had been illegally alienated. We, therefore, make it clear that if under the law the Wakf Board can recover property from the possession of the other persons including the petitioner, it is open to the wakf Board to take such action in law as it may be advised, and the findings recorded by us in this judgment will not come in the way of recovery of possession by the Wakf board in accordance with law. 7. However, some of the other charges are very serious. Charge No.2 related to non-compliance of the Boards notice dated 2-5-1985 requiring the petitioner to produce certain papers at the Boards office. The finding recorded by the Chairman that he failed to carry out the order of the Board. The plea of the petitioner was that he had visited the Boards office on several dates, but the papers were not examined. This plea has not been accepted by the Chairman, who has held that the petitioner did not disclose any particular date on which he had so appeared. Moreover, he noticed the established practice in the Boards office that whenever summoned to attend the Boards office, the Motawalli has to inform the office about his presence on a prescribed form which becomes a part of the record of the concerned Wakf case. The petitioner did not claim to have got his presence recorded by filling up the prescribed form which formed part of the record, if it was true. We are, therefore, satisfied that charge No.2 stands proved. 8. More serious charge is charge No.3 which relates to mismanagement of Wakf properties and non-payment of shares of the beneficiaries. The plea of the petitioner was that since the beneficiaries refused to receive the amount, he had deposited the same in the Bank, but the sum so deposited was only Rs.2600/-each. On the other hand, the beneficiaries contended that the annual report submitted for the year 1984-85 showed that the income of the Waqf estate was Rs.55,000/. Even after making necessary deduction for taxes, Waqf fee etc. On the other hand, the beneficiaries contended that the annual report submitted for the year 1984-85 showed that the income of the Waqf estate was Rs.55,000/. Even after making necessary deduction for taxes, Waqf fee etc. , a sum of rs.31,795/- was available for disbursement to the four beneficiaries. The three beneficiaries for whom Rs.2600/- each was only deposited, were entitled to Rs.23,844/-. The Chairman of the Board has come to the conclusion that the petitioner acting as Motawalli did not pay the beneficiaries the amount to which they were entitled, and that the sum offered to the beneficiaries was only a fraction of the amount to which they were legally entitled. Counsel submitted that the Motawalli has to meet the expenses to maintain the Wakf property as also to incur other expenses which are incidental to the management of the Wakf estate, apart from payment of taxes etc. Those expenses have been taken into account, but it cannot be said that out of income of Rs.55,000/- only Rs.2600/- each was available for payment to three of the beneficiaries. If it was so, it was itself a proof of gross mismanagement of the Waqf estate, and may also indicate dishonesty on the part of the Motawalli. It was not expected that out of total income of Rs.55,000/- only a sum of about Rs.10,000/- was available for distribution to the four beneficiaries. Counsel emphasised the fact that the amount available for distribution to the beneficiaries is also dependent upon the total income earned by the Waqf estate. We do not dispute this position, but we find that pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court on 21st April, 1987, the petitioner was directed to pay to the beneficiaries on the basis of the annual net income of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is stated by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been paying this amount over the years though Counsel for the beneficiaries stated that the instalment which fell due in July 1987 has not yet been paid. It would thus be seen that the total gross income of the Waqf estate was only shown to be Rs.55,000/- for the year 1984-85, but pursuant to the order of this court the petitioner was able to distribute a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per year by way of net income. Obviously, the gross income must have been more than Rs.1,00,000/-. It would thus be seen that the total gross income of the Waqf estate was only shown to be Rs.55,000/- for the year 1984-85, but pursuant to the order of this court the petitioner was able to distribute a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per year by way of net income. Obviously, the gross income must have been more than Rs.1,00,000/-. This by itself would indicate the manner in which the earnings of the Waqf estate were being shown and utilised. We, therefore, find no unreasonableness in the finding recorded by the Chairman of the Wakf board on charge No.3. 9. Charge No.5 was to the effect that the petitioner did not maintain any register of Waqf properties nor did he maintain proper account of the income and expenditure. The relevant books of account and register were not produced before the Chairman, Wakf Board. The case of the petitioner was that he had produced the register and books before the Chairman at the time of earlier local enquiry, but the same were not looked into. This is hardly a plea which can be entertained. At the earlier stage the chairman of the Wakf Board held a preliminary enquiry to find out whether the charges were baseless. After he was satisfied that the charges were not baseless, charges were framed and served upon the petitioner one of them being that he had not maintained proper account of the income and expenditure and had not maintained proper register and the books of account etc. When such charges were framed against the petitioner, he was bound to produce the accounts maintained by him and the register etc. if his defence was that he had actually maintained proper account. His failure to produce the account of income and expenditure of the Waqf estate and the register of Waqf properties proves the charge levelled against him. The Chairman of wakf Board has drawn adverse inference against the petitioner on account of non-production of the register and the accounts. We find no illegality in the said finding. 10. The findings on these four charges were affirmed in appeal by the Minister. The Chairman of wakf Board has drawn adverse inference against the petitioner on account of non-production of the register and the accounts. We find no illegality in the said finding. 10. The findings on these four charges were affirmed in appeal by the Minister. We may ignore the finding under charge No.1, but the findings recorded under charge Nos.2, 3 and 5 are serious enough, and we cannot say that on such findings the Chairman, Wakf Board could not have reasonably come to the conclusion that in the interest of Waqf estate it was necessary to remove the petitioner from the office of Motawalli. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of removal is grossly disproportionate to the charges proved against the petitioner. We do not agree, and we are of the view that the charges which have been proved are serious enough to warrant removal of the petitioner from Motawalliship. 11. It was then submitted by Counsel for the petitioner that the power exercised by the Chairman of the Wakf Board was without authority. His submission was that he was not delegated with the powers under the Act of 1954 which was exer cisable by the Wakf Board. Counsel for the beneficiaries has drawn our attention to section 22 of the Wakf Act, 1954 which authorises the Board by general or special order in writing to delegate the Chairman such of its powers and duties under this act as it may deem necessary. Pursuant to this the Board by its resolution dated 9-6-1973 authorised the Chairman to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Board under the Act in emergent cases likely to cause loss to the interest of the waqf estate. The Chairman, however, was required to report the action taken by him to the Board for their approval at the next meeting of the Board. It thus appears that the Chairman was duly authorised by the aforesaid resolution of the Board to exercise powers in cases of emergency. The said resolution is Annexure-19 to the writ petition. In paragraph No.7 (xxxvi) of the writ petition it has been stated by the petitioner himself that the Chairman in the meeting of the Bihar State Sunni Waqf board held on 29-11-1986 got approved his order dated 21-10-1986. The said resolution is Annexure-19 to the writ petition. In paragraph No.7 (xxxvi) of the writ petition it has been stated by the petitioner himself that the Chairman in the meeting of the Bihar State Sunni Waqf board held on 29-11-1986 got approved his order dated 21-10-1986. It is, therefore, admitted by the petitioner himself that the impugned order (Annexure-3)passed by the Chairman, Wakf Board on 21-10-1986 was approved by the Board on 29-11-1986. Counsel submitted that even if the petitioner was removed from the office of Motawalli, the Chairman of the Board was not justified in appointing a committee to perform the duties and functions of motawalli. It was submitted that unless the waqfnama itself provided for the appointment of a committee to perform functions and duties of Mutawalli, the Board or its chairman could not appoint a Committee to look after the affairs and to manage the waqf estate. The submission is misconceived. Under proviso to Sec.15, the board has to act in conformity with the directions of the Wakif, the purposes of the Waqf and any usage or custom of the waqf sanctioned by the Muslim law. Subsection (1) of Sec.15 provides that subject to the rules framed under the Act, the general superintendence of all Waqfs in a state shall vest in the Board established for the State; and it shall be the duty of the board so to exercise its powers under the act as to ensure that the Waqfs under its superintendence are properly maintained, controlled and administered and the income thereof is duly applied to objects and for the purposed for which such Waqfs were created or intended. In the instant case the petitioner was appointed the mutawalli because his father, who was the mutawalli under the Waqfnama was removed on findings of misconduct. Under the Mohammedan law it is well settled that if it is not possible to give effect to the wishes of the Waqf, some arrangement can be made for the management of the Wakf, which is in the interest of the waqf estate, and not contrary to any of the directions contained in the Waqfnama. It is no doubt true that the wishes of the Waqf have to be given due importance. It is no doubt true that the wishes of the Waqf have to be given due importance. In the instant case the Committee appointed by the Chairman consists of one lawyer, who is a Muslim by faith, three female beneficiaries and the former Mutawalli of the Waqif, namely, the father of the petitioner. From the recitals in the Waqf deed it appears that the Waqf was keen that the management of the Waqf must remain in the hands of the family members, and it therefore, provided that eldest son of Bibi Aisha shall be the first Mutwalli after the Waqifa. He was to be succeeded by his eldest son and so on and so forth. We are satisfied that the arrangement made by the Chairman of the Wakf board does not in any manner offend the wishes of the Waqif. Moreover, arrangement was made only for a period of one year, or till further orders, whichever was earlier. That committee could never take over charge because of the order of stay passed by this Court. It is even now open to the Board to make suitable arrangement for the management of the Waqf estate and in doing so it may take into account all relevant circumstances. We do not find any illegality in the constitution of the committee for the management of the waqf estate, but it is for the Board to look into this matter from time to time and to pass suitable directions. 12. These are the only submissions urged before us, and since we find no merit in any one of them, we dismiss the writ petition. 13. It was brought to our notice that the petitioner failed to disburse the amount to the beneficiaries which fell due in the month of June 1997. We direct the petitioner to disburse the amount payable to the beneficiaries within a period of one month from today, failing which the board will be entitled to take suitable steps against the petitioner, apart from any i action that this Court may take for noncompliance of its order. This writ petition is, accordingly dismissed. Petition Dismissed.