JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the recovery citation dated 2nd March, 2015, passed by the respondent no. 4 against the petitioner. 2. It is the principal submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before issuing the impugned recovery citation. Apart from this principal submission, learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the petitioner is neither mutawalli nor connected in any way with the management of the wakf. 3. It will be useful to quote sub-section (3) of Section 33 of the Wakf Act, 1995, herein below for the convenience. “33. Powers of inspection by Chief Executive Officer or persons authorised by him.— (1) ——————— (2) ———————— (3) Where, after any such inspection, it appears that the concerned mutawalli or any officer or other employee who is or was working under him had misappropriated, misapplied or fraudulently retained, any money or other wakf property, or had incurred irregular, unauthorised or improper expenditure from the funds of the wakf, the Chief Executive Officer may, after giving the mutawalli or the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why an order for the recovery of the amount or property, should not be passed against him and after considering such explanation, if any, as such person may furnish, determine the amount or the property, which has been misappropriated, misapplied or fraudulently retained, or the amount of the irregular, unauthorised or improper expenditure incurred by such person, and make an order directing such person to make payment of the amount so determined and to restore the said property to the wakf, within such time as may be specified in the order.” [Emphasis supplied] 4. Even if it be conceded for the sake of arguments that the petitioner is mutawalli or connected with the management of the waqf, it is an admitted fact that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before passing the recovery order. 5. Even if it be conceded for the sake of arguments that the petitioner is mutawalli or connected with the management of the waqf, it is an admitted fact that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before passing the recovery order. 5. Sub-section (3) of Section 33 of the Waqf Act, 1995, clearly stipulates that a reasonable opportunity of showing cause, as to why an order for the recovery of the amount or property, should not be passed against him and after considering such explanation, if any, as such person may furnish, determine the amount ……………………………, and make an order directing such person to make payment of the amount so determined and to restore the said property to the waqf, within such time as may be specified in the order, is required to be given. It is a mandatory provision. As stated above, while passing the recovery order and recovery citation against the petitioner, the respondents neither gave any notice nor any opportunity of hearing, nor served the recovery order on the petitioner, although, recovery citation was served. This fact is under no dispute that the opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner before issuing coercive measures, which is in clear violation of the terms of the statute and, therefore, recovery citation must go. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has an alternate remedy to approach the civil court, even if the waqf tribunal has not been constituted under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 placed a judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court being Magnum Developers and others vs. Lal Shah Baba Dargah Trust and another, reported in 2015 SCC Onlne Bom 4796, in support of his contention. 7. The impugned recovery citation is, therefore, quashed. It will, however, be open to the respondent no. 1 to issue show cause notice as stipulated under sub-section (3) of Section 33 of the Waqf Act, 1995, or under any other provision as may be available to the respondents in law and proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. 8. Writ Petition, thus, stands disposed of.