JUDGMENT : This intra Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant-petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed in W.P.No.107569/2019 (GM-WAKF) dated 22.04.2019. 2. We have heard the leaned senior counsel Sri. Vivek Subba Reddy for Sri. V.M. Sheelavant Advoate for appelalnt, learned Addl. Government Advocate Smt. Veena Hegde for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and learned counsel Sri. D.L. Ladkhan, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 4. 3. Petitioner by invoking the writ jurisdiction has filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 15.03.2019 as per Annexure-‘B’ passed by the respondent No.2. By the said order 3rd respondent Tahasildar has been appointed as Administrator of Hazrath Masthan Vali Shah Khadri Dargah (Sunni) after removing the petitioner from the office of the Mutawalli on the ground that the petitioner was not residing in station and that he has not maintained the Wakf Institution properly. The learned single judge after considering the facts and circumstances discussed therein has come to the conclusion that writ petitioner has not made out any good grounds and it is devoid of merits and writ petition was came to be dismissed. Challenging the same the petitioner-appellant is before this Court. 4. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel that the petitioner has been appointed as Mutawalli during the year 2010 and by virtue of order dated 15.03.2019, he has been removed and respondent No.3-Tahasildar is appointed as the Administrator of Wakf Institution. While appointing the respondent No.3 as Administrator, respondent No.2 has not followed the provisions of Section 64 and 65 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter called as ‘Act’ in short). It is his further submission that in order to remove or appoint the new person to the Wakf Institution as per Section 64(3) unless, it holds an inquiry into the matter in a prescribed manner, no such orders has to be passed in this behalf. It is his further submission that the assumption of directing the Management comes into picture only if provisions of Section 64 are followed. As per Section 64(3) an inquiry has to be held but in the instant case on hand no such inquiry has been made before passing the order as per Annexure-‘B’. It is his further submission that no opportunity has been given to the petitioner before the said order has been passed, principles of natural justice requires that the notice has to be served. It is his further submission that no opportunity has been given to the petitioner before the said order has been passed, principles of natural justice requires that the notice has to be served. It is his further submission that he resided in abroad, but he wound up the work and came back and settled in India since 2018-2019. It is his further submission that though he was in abroad a Khadim has been appointed to look after the affairs of the Wakf Institution. But, even he has also not been served with the notice. It is his further submission that an inquiry was also made in this behalf by the Director of Wakf Officer, Bellary and he has given report on 27.12.2018. In his report also he has specifically opined that to remove the appointed Mutawalli an order has to be passed. But, the said order has to be in compliance of Section 64 and 65 of the Act and all the procedures which are adopted while passing the order is not in accordance with law. It is his further submission that taking of the Management itself will not tantamount to the order of removal of Mutawalli. In the absence of any order of removal in accordance with law, the order under Annexure-‘B’ will not be sustainable in law. In order to substantiate his contention, he relied upon the ALLI HUSSAIN Vs. PARANGIPETTAI S. ALI MOSQUE, 2001 SCC ONLINE SC 81. It is his further submission that even the Single Judge has stepped into the shoes of inquiry officer and he himself has made an inquiry and has passed the order as if that the order is passed by following the provisions of Section 64 and 65 of the Act and as such the impugned order is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside. On these grounds he prays to allow the writ appeal. 5. Per contra, the learned AGA by supporting the judgment of the Single Judge requests to dismiss the appeal as the appeal is devoid of merit. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and 4 vehemently argued and submitted that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has remained absent and he was out of country and he was not properly managing the Wakf Institution. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and 4 vehemently argued and submitted that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has remained absent and he was out of country and he was not properly managing the Wakf Institution. It is his further submission that the learned Single Judge by exercising the powers under Section 226 and 227 has ascertained the truth from the appellant who is present before the Court and thereafter when the Court was convinced that the petitioner was residing in abroad and he has not properly managed the Wakf Institution and as such by discussing the facts in detail at paragraph No.8 has passed the impugned order which is in accordance with law. It is his further submission that the notice has to be served but as on the date the petitioner was not residing in the Country and he was residing in abroad as such notice is not served. He further submitted that in Annexure-‘B’, Administrator has been appointed on the basis of the report given and the said order is in accordance with law. It is his further submission that the petitioner has not placed all the records before the Court and he is not come to the Court with clean hands. In order to get the relief of the Court, petitioner has to come with clean hands and by placing all the records, he must seek for the relief. He further submitted that the Management of the Wakf Institution is the main object of the Act and if there is a mis-management and non-management then, under such circumstances Wakf Institution will have a full right to take the administration of the Wakf Institution and that it can pass the suitable orders. On these grounds he prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. Before considering the submissions made, we feel it just and proper to quote Section 64 and 65 of the Act, which reads as under: 64. On these grounds he prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. Before considering the submissions made, we feel it just and proper to quote Section 64 and 65 of the Act, which reads as under: 64. Removal of Mutawalli.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law or the deed of wakf, the Board may remove a mutawalli from his office if such mutawalli— (a) has been convicted more than once of an offence punishable under section 61; or (b) has been convicted of any offence of criminal breach of trust or any other offence involving moral turpitude, and such conviction has not been reversed and he has not been granted full pardon with respect to such offence; or (c) is of unsound mind or is suffering from other mental or physical defect or infirmity which would render him unfit to perform the functions and discharge the duties of a mutawalli; or (d) is an undischarged insolvent; or (e) is proved to be addicted to drinking liquor or other spirituous preparations, or is addicted to the taking of any narcotic drugs; or (f) is employed as a paid legal practitioner on behalf of, or against, the wakf; or (g) has failed, without reasonable excuse, to maintain regular accounts for two consecutive years or has failed to submit, in two consecutive years, the yearly statement of accounts, as required by sub-section (2) of section 46; or (h) is interested, directly or indirectly, in a subsisting lease in respect of any wakf property, or in any contract made with, or any work being done for, the wakf or is in arrears in respect of any sum due by him to such wakf; or (i) continuously neglects his duties or commits any misfeasance, malfeasance, misapplication of funds or breach of trust in relation to the wakf or in respect of any money or other wakf property; or (j) wilfully and persistently disobeys the lawful orders made by the Central Government, State Government, Board under any provision of this Act or rule or order made thereunder; (k) misappropriates or fraudulently deals with the property of the wakf. (2) The removal of a person from the office of the Mutawalli shall not affect his personal rights, if any, in respect of the wakf property either as a beneficiary or in any other capacity or his right, if any, as a sajjadanashin. (3) No action shall be taken by the Board under subsection (1), unless it has held an inquiry into the matter in a prescribed manner and the decision has been taken by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of the Board. (4) A Mutawalli who is aggrieved by an order passed under any of the clauses (c) to (i) of sub-section (1), may, within one month from the date of the receipt by him of the order, appeal against the order to the Tribunal and the decision of the Tribunal on such appeal shall be final. (5) Where any inquiry under sub-section (3) is proposed, or commenced, against any mutawalli, the Board may, if it is of opinion that it is necessary so to do in the interest of the wakf, by an order suspend such mutawalli until the conclusion of the inquiry: Provided that no suspension for a period exceeding ten days shall be made except after giving the mutawalli a reasonable opportunity of being heard against the proposed action. (6) Where any appeal is filed by the mutawalli to the Tribunal under sub-section (4), the Board may make an application to the Tribunal for the appointment of a receiver to manage the wakf pending the decision of the appeal, and where such an application is made, the Tribunal shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), appoint a suitable person as receiver to manage the wakf and direct the receiver so appointed to ensure that the customary or religious rights of the mutawalli and of the wakf are safeguarded. (7) Where a mutawalli has been removed from his office under sub-section (1), the Board may, by order, direct the mutawalli to deliver possession of the wakf property to the Board or any officer duly authorised in this behalf or to any person or committee appointed to act as the mutawalli of the wakf property. (7) Where a mutawalli has been removed from his office under sub-section (1), the Board may, by order, direct the mutawalli to deliver possession of the wakf property to the Board or any officer duly authorised in this behalf or to any person or committee appointed to act as the mutawalli of the wakf property. (8) A mutawalli of a wakf removed from his office under this section shall not be eligible for reappointment as a mutawalli of that wakf for a period of five years from the date of such removal.” 65. Assumption of Direct Management of Certain Wakfs by the Board..— (1) Where no suitable person is available for appointment as a mutawalli of a wakf, or where the Board is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, that the filling up of the vacancy in the office of a mutawalli is prejudicial to the interests of the wakf, the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, assume direct management of the wakf for such period or periods, not exceeding five years in the aggregate, as may be specified in the notification. (2) The State Government, may, on its own motion or on the application of any person interested in the wakf, call for the records of any case for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the notification issued by the Board under sub-section (1) and pass such orders as it may think fit and the orders so made by the State Government shall be final and shall be published in the manner specified in sub-section (1). (3) As soon as possible after the close of every financial year, the Board shall send to the State Government a detailed report in regard to every wakf under its direct management, giving therein— (a) the details of the income of the wakf for the year immediately preceding the year under report; (b) the steps taken to improve the management and income of the wakf; (c) the period during which the wakf has been under the direct management of the Board and explaining the reasons as to why it has not been possible to entrust the management of the wakf to the mutawalli or any committee of management during the year; and (d) such other matters as may be prescribed. (4) The State Government shall examine the report submitted to it under sub-section (3), and after such examination issue such directions or instructions to the Board as it may think fit and the Board shall comply with such directions or instructions on receipt thereof. 9. On close reading of the said sections, it contemplates that if a power has to be exercised under Section 65 of the Wakf Act, it mandates that the conditions so which have been mentioned in Section 64 are followed strictly in accordance with law. As per Section 64(3) it contemplates that no action has to be taken by the Wakf Institution under Sub Section (1) unless it has held an inquiry into the matter in a prescribed manner. The word’ inquiry’ that itself clearly goes to show that an opportunity has to be given to the person to whom they are intending to remove or displace from that particular place. In the present case on hand, no such material has been produced either being having served with the notice or even the efforts have been made to serve the notice through any other measures. In the absence of such material, it cannot be held that no inquiry is held and provisions of Section 64 of the Act have not been followed. If procedures under Section 64 are not followed and subsequently exercised the powers under Section 65 thereafter passing the order as per Annexure-‘B’ is not in accordance with law and the same is not sustainable. 10. Be that as it may. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ALI HUSSAIN quoted (supra), at paragraph 4 that it has been observed as under:- “Whether a scheme has been framed or not, and whether such scheme is in accordance with law or not, we are not expressing any opinion and we are not examining the legality of that. Suffice it to say that the right of muthavalli in the management of the wakf can be nullified only when an order of removal is passed under the provisions of the Wakf Act and in absence of such order of removal, it is difficult for us to conclude that the constitution of management by order dated 29.12.1997 itself would tantamount to an order of removal of muthavalli. That being the position, and in the absence of any order of removal in accordance with law, the impugned direction of the High Court must be held to be not in accordance with law. We therefore hold that the High Court was not justified in issuing the aforesaid direction, though pursuant to the said direction the documents are said to have been already handed over to the committee of management. We therefore set aside the impugned direction of the High Court, and it is open for the parties to seek appropriate relief before the appropriate forum taking into account any subsequent development including challenging the so-called framing of a scheme.” 11. On close reading of the said paragraph, even it has specifically stated that there is no deemed order of removal if at all removal has to be made, it must be in accordance with law as contemplated under Section 64. Keeping in view the said proposition of law and the facts of this case, the impugned order herein has be set aside. Under the said facts and circumstances ratio laid down in the case quoted supra is aptly applicable to the present case on hand when it is a specific case made out by the petitioner that when during 2018-2019 he is residing in India and admittedly the order has been passed only on 15.03.2019, then under such circumstances, notice has to be served to the Mutawalli-petitioner who is going to be dismissed by virtue of the order as per Annexure-‘B’. Not following the said provision and procedure it amounts to nothing but it is an illegality not irregularity and as such order passed in Annexure-‘B’ is an illegal order and the same is liable to be quashed. 12. In view of the discussion held by us above, Writ Appeal is allowed, order dated 22.04.2019 is set aside and order at Annexure-‘B’ is also quashed. In order to give opportunity and follow the mandate of law matter requires to be remanded. Accordingly, matter is remanded back to the respondent No.2 with a liberty to take suitable action and pass a suitable order in accordance with law as observed above, by giving full opportunity to all the parties in the case. Since main appeal is disposed off, IA Nos.1 and 2/2019 does not survive for consideration.