Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 537 (UTT)

Chaudhary Raees Ahmad v. State Of Uttarakhand

2007-11-01

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2007
JUDGMENT Prafulla C. Pant, J. 1. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. Counter affidavit has been filed today on behalf of respondent No. 4. The same be taken on record. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.09.2007, passed by respondent No. 1 (copy Annexure -1 to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner, Chairman of the Uttarakhand Waqf Board, was removed from his post. 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed by the Government as Chairman of the Uttarakhand Waqf Board. It appears that on some complaints received by the Government against the petitioner, notices were issued to the petitioner to explain his conduct in the matter in relation to the allegations made against him, in the complaints. The allegations contained in the complaints included non-compliance of provisions of Section 65(1) of the Waqf Act, 1995, apart from other financial irregularities allegedly committed during the period 2005-06 and 2006-07, particularly, with regard to giving contracts to various persons without getting the same done by way of auction. It appears that vide Government letter dated 08.08.2007, the petitioner was asked to submit his reply, within fifteen days to the Government. On 20.08.2007, petitioner sought further fifteen days time to present his case. It appears that the period of fifteen days was allowed by the Government on 22.08.2007, specifically mentioning that the petitioner should file his reply latest by 8th of September 2007. 4. From the calendar, it is apparent that 8th of September 2007 was a second Saturday (holiday) and 9th of September 2007 was a Sunday, as such, the last date when the petitioner could have filed his reply was, infact, 10th of September 2007. It is only after 10th of September 2007, the Government could have passed the order removing the petitioner, if no reply is given. The impugned order, copy of which is Annexure -1 to the writ petition, shows that the impugned order removing the petitioner under Section 20(1)(b) of the Waqf Act 1995, is passed on 10th of September 2007, itself. 5. The writ petitioner4s argument is that the respondent No. 2 has wrongly mentioned that no reply was given by the petitioner in response to the notice within the time allowed for the same. 5. The writ petitioner4s argument is that the respondent No. 2 has wrongly mentioned that no reply was given by the petitioner in response to the notice within the time allowed for the same. In this connection, attention of this Court is drawn to Annexure -16 to the writ petition, which is copy of reply given by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice. There is endorsement on the first page of the reply relating to receiving the same on 10th of September 2007. As such, in the impugned order the ground that petitioner did not give any reply to the show cause notice within the extended period, is wrong. 6. Having gone through the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed by the parties, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order appears to have been passed without waiting for the period by which the petitioner was entitled to submit his reply, and also without considering the reply he had already submitted on the last date, when it could have filed after the period extended by the Government. 7. Therefore, the impugned order dated 10th of September 2007 removing the petitioner under Section 20(1)(b) of the Waqf Act 1995, is liable to be quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10th September 2007 is quashed with the observation that the respondents may pass fresh orders, after considering the reply already submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law.