ORDER : The Masjid-E-Mahal Kallan (Sunni) (for short, ‘the Waqf), Afzalpur Taluk, Kalaburagi Dist is a Waqf governed by the Waqf Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner was appointed on 16.04.2015 vide Order as at Annexure-A as Mutawalli for management of the Waqf. By an order dated 16.03.2016 vide Annexure-B, an Administrator was appointed to manage the Waqf. Assailing the said order W.P. No.202170/2016 was filed. During the pendency of the petition the order as at Annexure-C having been passed replacing the Administrator and appointing respondent No.2 as the Administrator, the petition was disposed of on 01.12.2016 with liberty to question the subsequent order. This writ petition was filed to quash the order as at Annexure-C. 2. Sri S.S. Halalli, learned advocate argued that the orders as at Annexures - B and C amount to removal of the petitioner from the post of Mutawalli and as such, there is violation of S.64 of the Act. Learned counsel contended that the procedure prescribed under S.64 having not been followed and there being violation of principles of natural justice, the orders as at Annexures – B and C are illegal. 3. Sri P.S. Malipatil, learned advocate on the other hand submitted that the petitioner has suppressed an Order dated 11.07.2011 passed in case No. APM 28 GBA OF 2009 and there being acts unbecoming on the part of the petitioner as a Mutawalli and his actions were detrimental to the Waqf, power under Ss.63 and 65 of the Act was exercised and the orders vide Annexures – B and C were passed and the same are justifiable. 4. The petitioner having been appointed as Mutawalli in exercise of the power under S.63 of the Act, any order passed subsequently by respondent No.1 must be shown as permissible and justifiable under the provisions of the Act. S.65 provides for assumption of direct management of certain Waqfs by the 1st respondent – Board. The said power can be exercised when no suitable person is available to be appointed as a Mutawalli or where the Board is satisfied for reasons to be accorded by it in writing, that the filling up of vacancy in the Office of the Mutawalli is prejudicial to the interests of the Waqf. The said power can be exercised when no suitable person is available to be appointed as a Mutawalli or where the Board is satisfied for reasons to be accorded by it in writing, that the filling up of vacancy in the Office of the Mutawalli is prejudicial to the interests of the Waqf. In such an event, the Board, by Notification in Official Gazette, can assume direct management of the Waqf for the period as may be specified in the Notification. 5. Regard being had to the provisions appearing in Ss.63, 64 and 65 of the Act and the petitioner having been appointed as Mutawalli of the Waqf as per the Order at Annexure-A, without exercising the power under S.64, it is not open to the 1st respondent to exercise the power under S.65 and pass the orders as at Annexures – B and C. 6. Concededly, no notice was served on the petitioner requiring to show cause against the proposed removal in exercise of power under S.64. Sub-section (3) of S.64 mandates conducting of enquiry by granting opportunity of hearing. The petitioner was not served with a show-cause notice nor provided with any kind of opportunity of hearing. He has not been removed from the post of Mutawalli of the Waqf. Vacancy of post of Mutawalli of the Waqf having not arisen, it is not open to respondent No.1 to pass the orders as at Annexures – B and C and appoint the Administrator. The appointment of respondent No.2 by respondent No.1 as the Administrator of the Waqf i.e. by way of replacement is illegal. In view of the above, petition is allowed and the orders of the 1st respondent as at Annexures – B and C are quashed. However, liberty is reserved to respondent No.1 to take action, if found necessary, against the petitioner in accordance with law. No costs.