JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has challenged the order at Annexure-11 dated 30.05.07 whereby petitioner was removed from the post of Treasurer. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was appointed on the post of Treasurer vide Annexure-1 dated 24.05.07 but thereafter without assigning any reason or even without providing opportunity of hearing, order impugned has been passed. It has further been submitted that as per provisions of Section 64 of the Wakf Act of 1995, petitioner could not have been removed unless he has attained one of the disqualifications as is given under the said provisions. It has been submitted that by virtue of provisions of Section 3(i) of the Act, petitioner is a Mutwali being appointed as office bearer, thus a Mutwali cannot be removed for any other reasons than provided under Section 64 of the Act of 1995. It is on these grounds, the order is being impugned by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent appearing for the Wakf Board submits that the petitioner was removed precisely in view of the conditions existing in Annexure-1. Referring to condition No. 1, it was submitted that petitioner was liable to be removed at any point of time. So far as respondent No. 4 is concerned, it was submitted that since he has already taken charge of the post, thus he cannot now be removed and prayed for summarily dismissal of the writ petition. 4. I have considered the submissions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 5. It is clear from the perusal of Section 3(i) that petitioner is a Mutwali being appointed as office bearer of the Wakf Committee and this fact has not been disputed by any party. Now comes as to whether a Mutwali can be removed on any ground other than provided under the Statute, more specifically under Section 64. 5. It is clear from the perusal of Section 3(i) that petitioner is a Mutwali being appointed as office bearer of the Wakf Committee and this fact has not been disputed by any party. Now comes as to whether a Mutwali can be removed on any ground other than provided under the Statute, more specifically under Section 64. When the Act of 1995 provides that on what condition a Mutwali can be removed then other than "those conditions, petitioner cannot be removed from the post and that too when during the course of argument or otherwise the respondents cannot furnish any reason for his removal, as the order of removal is not falling in any of the categories as given under Section 64 of the Act, therefore, the impugned order cannot be allowed to be sustained merely for the reason that contrary to the statutory provision, same condition was laid in the order at Annexure-1. An administrative order cannot run counter to the statutory provisions, hence the action of the respondents in passing the order Annexure-1 1 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. The writ petition is allowed and the order Annexure-1 1 is set aside with consequential benefits.Writ petition allowed. *******