Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 165 (UTT)

INTIZAMIA COMMITTEE v. UTTARAKHAND WAKF BOARD

2015-03-23

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Having heard the rival contentions, it transpires that the Waqf No. 7 to 11 and 17 to 19 pertained to Almora Jama Masjid, Ranikhet and the administration thereof was being looked after by the revisionist Hazi Mohammad Yunus. At the outset, it will be relevant to note certain lapses which follow are as under. 2. The revisionist took over the administration of these Waqfs for three years and this period had to run from January 2001 to January 2004. After January 2004, no decision was taken by the Waqf Board, who is supposed to look after the management and welfare of all the Waqfs across the State. So, the revisionist continued in his office even further for years, and all of a sudden vide letter dated 21.5.2008, issued by Uttarakhand Waqf Board, the period of administration in the hands of the revisionist was renewed with retrospective effect from 7.9.2007 to 6.9.2010. Meaning thereby, even if this order validating the period of working of the revisionist with retrospective effect is considered, the fact remains that the aforementioned Waqf properties continued to be looked after since January 2004 to 7.9.2007 without any express order by the Waqf Board. 3. On expiry of the period of revisionist on 6.9.2010, an application was moved after the lapse of one month on 8.10.2011 for renewal of the term and such application remained pending again for almost two years without any decision of the competent officer of the Board. 4. Learned Counsel of the revisionist has argued that the requisite contribution to the tune of Rs. 13,625/- was also paid to the Board on 28.10.2013 for such renewal, nonetheless the Board remained silent. 5. Grievance of the revisionist started when the Board, vide order dated 11.10.2013, constituted another committee to look after the above Waqf properties under the Chairmanship of Wasim Quireshi. Copy of such order was endorsed to the revisionist requesting him to hand over the charge to the newly appointed Chairman under the intimation of the Board. 6. Such request was not acceded to by the revisionist, rather the decision of the Board was challenged by Hazi Mohammad Yunus by way of filing the miscellaneous civil appeal no. 26/2013 before the Waqf Tribunal/District Judge, Almora, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 19.12.2014. Feeling disgruntled, the revisionist has come up in this revision. 7. 6. Such request was not acceded to by the revisionist, rather the decision of the Board was challenged by Hazi Mohammad Yunus by way of filing the miscellaneous civil appeal no. 26/2013 before the Waqf Tribunal/District Judge, Almora, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 19.12.2014. Feeling disgruntled, the revisionist has come up in this revision. 7. This Court has rendered hearing to learned Counsel for either party. 8. It was vehemently argued by the learned Counsel of the revisionist that there was no specific allegation of any kind against the revisionist, yet without rendering any opportunity of hearing and despite of depositing the requisite contribution, a new committee has been appointed by the Board in utter violation of the provisions contained under Section 64 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 9. This argument, put forth by the learned Counsel for the revisionist, is wholly unsubstantial and is rejected by the Court for the reason that the question is not of the removal of Mutawalli as envisaged under Section 64 of the Act because that is in certain specific circumstances which have been enumerated in the provision itself, and that is not the instant case. Waqf Board was well within its powers to appoint a new Mutwalli under Section 63 of the said act if the vacancy has arisen. It is surprising, how the revisionist continued to hold the office not only after getting the letter dated 11.10.2013, but even when the appeal was adjudicated against him by the learned Waqf Tribunal, wherefor he is vulnerable to any disciplinary action by the Board. 10. In this regard, two letters of the Joint Magistrate, Ranikhet sent to the Waqf Board are very relevant, whereby he has apprised the Board that working of the committee under the Chairmanship of Hazi Mohammad Yunus is being viewed very adversely by all the Muslim community there and that situation is causing very adverse affect on the law and order situation of Ranikhet city. So, he has expressed the dire need of constituting a new committee in order to allay the apprehension of disorder in the society. 11. I feel that there is no force in this revision. It is hereby dismissed.