Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J. – The instant Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner-appellant against the order dated 30th August, 2012 passed in CWJC No. 10512 of 2010, whereby the Writ Court held out that the erstwhile Managing Committee of the Waqf Estate has been dissolved on 17.1.2010 by more than 2/3rd members (9 out of 13 members), whereafter there is no Committee to manage the Waqf Estate and there was a vacancy due to the absence of any Mutwalli/Managing Committee of the said Waqf Estate and as such held out that in the changed scenario there is no question of removal of any non-existent Mutwalli/Managing Committee and the Waqf Estate by following the procedure contemplated under Sections 64 and 65 of the Act. 2. Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the judgment of the Writ Court is erroneous on fact as well as law. He referred to the definition of Waqf under the Waqf Act, 1995 and submitted that there are various category of Waqf. The Waqf in question was not dedication by any person but this Waqf is Waqf by user and the writ court misconstrued the distinction between Waqf created by a person and Waqf created by user. Referring to Section 67 of the Act he submitted that Section 67 of the Waqf Act applies to a situation where Waqf is created by any Waqif, it does not apply to Waqf by user and referring to the said provisions of Section 67 of the Act, he submitted that the writ court has committed a patent illegality in holding that the scenario after order dated 20.4.2009 passed in CWJC No. 3172 of 2009 changed in 2010 when the Managing Committee of the Waqf is said to have resolved to dissolve the Managing Committee. 3. Mr. Sinha also submitted that the tenure of Waqf of 3 years under Section 67 read with Rule 52 is relatable to a Waqf created by the Waqif and is not attracted in the case of Waqf by user. He also submitted that the writ court has committed error in ignoring the fact that no procedure was followed in accordance with the Waqf Act and the Rules by passing the impugned order dated 28.6.2009, Annexure-1. 4. Mr. He also submitted that the writ court has committed error in ignoring the fact that no procedure was followed in accordance with the Waqf Act and the Rules by passing the impugned order dated 28.6.2009, Annexure-1. 4. Mr. Sinha, placing reliance on Annexure-2 and 4 submitted that the writ court in the instant case has misconstrued the scheme of the Waqf Act and the Rules framed thereunder and wrongly dismissed the writ application. Referring to Annexure-2 Mr. Sinha submitted that this Court vide judgment dated 10th December, 2008 in CWJC No. 12624 of 1996 has examined the scheme of the Waqf Act with reference to the present Waqf and after considering the provisions of the Waqf Act, the writ application was allowed vide judgment dated 10th December, 2008. He further submitted that in CWJC No. 3172 of 2009 the matter was again examined by the writ court wherein the writ court once again examined various provisions of the Waqf Act and held out that the order dated 29.1.2009 regarding dissolution of the Managing Committee has been passed without complying with the requirement of section 64 of the Waqf Act. The writ court considered various provisions of the Act and held out that the Act and the Rules require a detailed enquiry and proper opportunity against a person before taking final decision by majority of not less than 2/3rd of the members of the Board. The writ court thus quashed the order of the Chairman of the Waqf Board dated 29.1.2009 and all other consequential directions issued pursuant thereto vide judgment contained in Annexure-4 and referring to the aforesaid judgment Mr. Sinha submitted that the resolution of the Board dated 13.6.2010 issued vide office order dated 28.6.2010 is a nullity. 5. Mr. Sinha submitted that neither Section 67 of the Waqf Act, 1995 nor Rule 52 of the Bihar Waqf Rules are applicable in the instant case and also submitted that before taking any action adverse to the interest of the Mutwalli/Managing Committee, minimum requirement of principles of natural justice and fair play was a condition precedent. 6. Mr. 5. Mr. Sinha submitted that neither Section 67 of the Waqf Act, 1995 nor Rule 52 of the Bihar Waqf Rules are applicable in the instant case and also submitted that before taking any action adverse to the interest of the Mutwalli/Managing Committee, minimum requirement of principles of natural justice and fair play was a condition precedent. 6. Mr. Sinha submitted that the action of the Chief Executive Officer, Bihar State Sunny Waqf Board is totally without jurisdiction and the order dismissing the writ application by the writ court is contrary to the Waqf Act, 1995, Bihar Waqf Rule, 2002 and also contrary to the direction issued by the writ court on the earlier occasion as contained in Annexures 2 and 4. Section 3 (r) of the Act defines the term ‘Waqf’ as follows: – “waqf” means the permanent dedication by any person, of any movable or immovable property for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and includes- (i) A waqf by user but such waqf shall not cease to be a waqf by reason only of the user having ceased irrespective of the period of such ceasser; (ii) A shamlat Patti, Shamlat Deh, Jumla Malkkan or by any other name entered in a revenue record; (iii) “grants”, including mashrat-ul-khidmat for any purpose recognized by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable; and (iv) A waqf-alal-aulad to the extent to which the property is dedicated for any purpose recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable, provided when the line of succession fails, the income of the waqf shall be spent for education, development, welfare and such other purposes as recognized by Muslim law, And “waqf” means any person making such dedication.” 7. The definition of waqf under Section 3(r) is very wide-worded and include the waqf by user. Mr. Sinha during the course of argument stressed on the difference between waqf by user and other waqf created by Waqif and has tried to persuade us that Section 67 of the Waqf Act is not attracted in the case of waqf created by user as it is only relatable to the waqf created by Waqif. However, when confronted he has admitted that other than Section 67 there is no other specific provision which takes care of the supervision and management of the waqf by user. 8. However, when confronted he has admitted that other than Section 67 there is no other specific provision which takes care of the supervision and management of the waqf by user. 8. We cannot think of a situation where the legislature which gave such a wide definition of waqf only takes care of the supervision and management of the waqf vested in the Managing Committee appointed by the waqif and exclude the waqf created by user. If the intention of the legislature was to prescribe tenure/term for the waqf, it must include the waqf as a whole including the waqf by user, otherwise if we give narrow interpretation to Section 67 of the Act by excluding the waqf by user then it lead will to catastrophic effect i.e. if once a Managing committee is constituted it will continue for ever as there is no term prescribed. 9. Mr. Sinha faced with such situation submitted that the scheme under Sections 64 and 65 provide for removal of Mutawalli and assumption of direct management by certain auqufs by the Board but exercising the power of removal of Mutawalli under Section 64 and again under Section 65 there is detailed procedure prescribed and unless the procedure prescribed under Section 64 and 65 are strictly adhered to Mutawalli cannot be removed. He submitted that in the instant case the action against the petitioner-appellant was taken without complying the requirement of law under Sections 64 and 65 of the Act which was essential before passing the impugned order particularly in view of the decision of the Court contained in Annexures 2 and 4, the respondents were required to adhere to the procedural safeguard contemplated under Sections 64 and 65 of the Act. 10. The submission of Mr. Sinha has been succinctly answered in the connected CWJC No. 10512 of 2010 paras 21, 22, and 23 of which runs as follows: – “21. However, after passing of order dated 20.4.2009 by a Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 3172 of 2009, the scenario had changed in the year 2010, when vide resolution dated 17.1.2010 the Managing Committee of trhe Wakf Estate itself resolved to dissolve the Managing Committee by more than two third of its members (nine out of thirteen members). However, after passing of order dated 20.4.2009 by a Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 3172 of 2009, the scenario had changed in the year 2010, when vide resolution dated 17.1.2010 the Managing Committee of trhe Wakf Estate itself resolved to dissolve the Managing Committee by more than two third of its members (nine out of thirteen members). This resolution had also been sent to the Board and had been supported by some of those members in their letters to the Board (Annexure- 18 series). Hence after the said dissolution of the Managing Committee by majority of its members, the then Managing Committee became non-existent. 22. So far as the claim of the petitioner in the aforesaid regard that after the said resolution dated 17.1.2010, the genral body comprising local people of the area took appropriate resolution for filling up the vacancies of certain members, who had left the Committee, is concerned, the said plea had not been taken in the writ petition and had been taken only in the petitioner’s reply to the rejoinder of respondent no. 2 to 4 without annexing the copy of any such resolution and without even giving any detail or date of such a resolution and only in paragraph 6 thereof, the names of the alleged office bearers and members including the petitioner as Secretary have been mentioned. In any view of the matter when the entire Managing Committee had been dissolved on 17.1.2010, there was no occasion for any one including the Wakf Board or the general body, if any, to fill up the vacancies in the already dissolved Managing Committee. Hence, such a plea of the petitioner cannot be legally relied upon as it is merely a bald and frivolous statement, not supported by any reliable material and it appears to be only for the purposes of personal aggrandizement of petitioner Mustafa and his henchmen for having control over the Wakf Estate. 23. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court has no hesitatin in holding that the erstwhile Managing Committee of the Wakf Estate had been dissolved on 17.1.2010 by more than two third members (nine out of thirteen members), whereafter, there was no Committee to manage the Wakf Estate and there was vacancy due to the absence of any Mutawalli/Managing Committee for the said wakf Estate. Hence in the aforesaid changed scenario, now Section 64 of the Act and the procedure provided therein would not be applicable as there is no question of removal of any non-existent Mutawalli/Managing Committee, rather due to the vacancy of Mutawalli/Managing Committee in the Wakf Estate, the Board was quitre legal and justified in taking steps under the provisions of Section 65 of the Act, for which all the requirements have been fulfilled.” 11. Having examined the scheme of the Waqf Act and the Waqf Rule and on consideration of the detailed discussions by the writ court, we are of the considered view that after the resolution dated 17.1.2010 by 2/3rd of the members of the Managing Committee, the Managing Committee itself became non-existent and as such there was absolutely no occasion for adhering to the procedure and requirement under Section 64 of the Act. 12. We have also examined the office order contained in Annexure-1 impugned in the writ application and we find that the Managing Committee constituted in 1996 cannot continue for more than 3 years in view of Rule 52 of the 2002 Waqf Rules as the Committee has outlived its life. We cannot keep our eyes closed to the fact noted in Annexure-1 that the Committee never submitted budget and return of the Waqf as the Managing Committee of the Waqf is holding fiduciary position and using public donation and contribution in the waqf by user. We do not find any error in the decision contained in Annexure-1 dated 28.6.2010 which has rightly been not interfered by the writ court. 13. In the instant appeal, the appellant has disputed the factum of dissolution of Managing Committee referring to Annexure-B on the ground that there was no requisite number and those shown present in the meeting dated 17.1.2010 have subsequently denied their presence. The submission of Mr. Sinha on this score does not merit any consideration in view of the fact that the order contained in Annexure-1 is otherwise well-founded and permissible under the scheme of Section 67 of the Waqf Act and Rule 52 of the Waqf Rule, 2002 as the Managing Committee constituted in 1996 by no stretch of imagination can continue beyond three years. 14. 14. The scheme under Section 65 of the Act obliges the Waqf Board to assume the management of the Waqf and we see no reason to interfere with the decision contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application in the backdrop of the fact that the existing Managing Committee has outlived its life and in such situation the void created has to be taken care by the Waqf Board. 15. Considering the totality of the fact situation, we are of the considered view that Section 67 of the Waqf Act read with Rule 52, the term of any Waqf, whether it is created by the Waqif or created by user cannot be extended for a period more than 3 years. 16. For the reasons sated above, we are in agreement with the finding recorded by the writ court. Accordingly, we dismiss this Letters Patent Appeal and approve the judgment of the writ court.