V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in writ petition No. 26899 of 2000 claims to be the president of committee of mutavallies of jamia masjid, nanjangud, which committee is the petitioner in writ petition No. 34511 of 2000. Both the writ petitions pertain to the same subject-matter relating to the management of the affairs of the aforesaid masjid. Hence, both the petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to these writ petitions are stated as under. Jamia masjid, idgah masjid and the grave-yards situated in nanjangud town are wakf properties. It is claimed the same are being managed by the committee of mutavallies (petitioner in writ petition No. 34511 of 2000) constituted under a deed dated 31-7-1953 produced as annexure-a. A complaint was lodged as per Annexure-B in case No. L. c. c. 7 of 1989 by respondents 3 to 6 (2 to 5 in writ petition No. 26899 of 2000) before the wakf board seeking removal of mutawallies etc. , on certain allegations. After due enquiry, wakf board passed an order on 21-6-1997 removing the mutawallies. The said order became the subject matter in writ petition No. 22226 of 1997. In the meanwhile, an ad hoc committee was appointed and that became the subject-matter in another writ petition in writ petition No. 16553 of 1999. This court clubbed both the writ petitions and by an order dated 28-10-1999 quashed the orders impugned therein with a direction to the wakf board to conduct fresh enquiry within four weeks. Thereafter, the law committee of the wakf board conducted enquiry and passed the order at Annexure-C , dated 8-5-2000 removing the committee of mutawallies, to frame a proper scheme for the administration of wakf institutions and till then to appoint an administrator. Pursuant to the said Order, an administrator was appointed by the wakf board vide order at Annexure-E , dated 6-10- 2000. Writ petition No. 34511 of 2000 is filed seeking to quash the said order. In writ petition No. 26899 of 2000 in addition to seeking to quash the very same order produced as Annexure-J , the order at Annexure-J l approving the order Annexure-J passed by the wakf board is also sought to be quashed. ( 3 ) MR. Writ petition No. 34511 of 2000 is filed seeking to quash the said order. In writ petition No. 26899 of 2000 in addition to seeking to quash the very same order produced as Annexure-J , the order at Annexure-J l approving the order Annexure-J passed by the wakf board is also sought to be quashed. ( 3 ) MR. Mohammed farooq, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the removal of the mutawallies amount to imposition of penalty as they cannot be appointed as such again. It is further contended that on the findings recorded by the enquiry committee, the wakf board was required to have taken a decision as contemplated under Section 64 (3) of the wakf act. But, the impugned order at Annexure-J l is not the decision of the board as held by the Supreme Court in the cases of p. l. Lakhanpal v Union of India and another and ramesh chandra sahu v N. Padhy on the other hand, it is only a confirmation of recommendation of the committee and it is not the decision of the board in the eye of law. According to the learned counsel, there is no application of mind by the board to the matter. The learned counsel further submits that in respect of the order at Annexure-J l no reasons are assigned and hence it is liable to be quashed. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents argued justifying the impugned orders and prayed for dismissing the writ petitions. ( 5 ) I have carefully examined the impugned orders. The impugned order passed by the law committee of the wakf board produced as Annexure-J in the first writ petition and Annexure-C in the connected writ petition is elaborate and conclusive. The committee has discussed each aspect in detail and recorded its findings. Those findings are based on documentary and oral evidence. The acts of mismanagement, malfeasance, misfeasance, negligence, misappropriation etc. , have all been discussed in detail and a categorical finding is recorded that the mutawallies have committed those acts. It is observed that they are trustees and their acts must be transparent, clean, devoid of any suspicion or doubt and above board and held that the same is lacking in the mutawallies. , have all been discussed in detail and a categorical finding is recorded that the mutawallies have committed those acts. It is observed that they are trustees and their acts must be transparent, clean, devoid of any suspicion or doubt and above board and held that the same is lacking in the mutawallies. ( 6 ) DEALING with the election to the committee of mutawallies, it was found that the term of mutawallies was three years but no elections had been conducted. The assertion of mutawallies that elections had been conducted and the same had been intimated to the concerned authorities, has been disbelieved. It has been held that if really elections had been conducted, records relating to the same would have been produced but no such records had been produced. In such a situation, the committee has raised the presumption under Section 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act against the mutawallies. ( 7 ) THE committee has discussed each allegations against the mutawallies with reference to the relevant Provisions of wakf Act, the documents and the evidence adduced. Committee has made an observation painfully that the conduct of mutawallies does not inspire the confidence of the committee. Having observed so, the order has been passed removing the mutawallies and certain directions have been issued including appointment of administrator. Therefore, it cannot be said at any stretch of imagination that the order at Annexure-J is bad in law. ( 8 ) THE order passed by the law committee was one of the subject-matter of the meeting of the wakf board dated 27-5-2000 in which the order has been approved as per Annexure-J l. Based on the same, the administrator has been appointed. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the impugned action. ( 9 ) THE confirmation of the findings of law committee by the wakf board amounts to acceptance of those findings. Since the committee has elaborately considered the matter and assigned valid and cogent reasons, the board has applied its mind and affixed its seal of approval. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no application of mind or no reasons are assigned in Annexure-J l and hence the same is bad in law, are all wholly untenable. If the board reverse the findings of the law committee or if there is divergent view of the board, naturally reasons require to be assigned. If the board reverse the findings of the law committee or if there is divergent view of the board, naturally reasons require to be assigned. Since the board has accepted the findings of the committee in toto, it has to be held that the said findings and reasons of the committee are also the findings and reasons of the board. No fresh or repetition of the same need be given. The reliance placed on the decisions by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard cannot be applied to the case on hand. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners is unable to show that the findings of the committee are erroneous. Even otherwise also, this court cannot substitute the findings in writ jurisdiction. The removal of mutawallies and the consequent appointment of administrator are done in accordance with law and the same are perfectly justified. No interference is warranted in these matters. ( 11 ) ACCORDINGLY, writ petitions are dismissed. --- *** --- .