JUDGMENT : 1. Although there is a remedy against the impugned order before the U.P. Waqf Tribunal, Lucknow, as it is not functioning on account of vacancy on the post of presiding officer, therefore, we have entertained this petition and are deciding it with the consent of the parties. 2. Heard Shri Q.H. Rizwi, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 as well as Shri Syed Aftab Ahmad, Advocate holding brief of Shri Adil Hussain, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.3 to 5. Considering the nature of the dispute, we do not propose to call for any counter affidavit in the matter. 3. The petitioners herein have challenged an order dated 16.08.2021 passed by the U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board by which another Committee of Management/Mutwalli has been appointed. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner no. 1/Committee of Management was initially appointed for three years on 22.01.2015. He says that the term of the Committee of Management was extended vide order dated 29.01.2018 w.e.f 22.01.2018 for three years. This term expired on 21.01.2021. The petitioner moved an application for extension of its term. In the meantime, as is mentioned in the impugned order, another committee of management is said to have been elected by the local persons. The Waqf in question being Waqf Al-al Khair that is a public waqf and the same was forwarded to the U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board for appointment as Committee of Management along with letter of one Sibtain Haider dated 06.07.2021. Thereafter it is said that some complaint was made against the petitioner no. 1/committee of management which was ordered to be inquired by the Waqf inspector. However, as it was represented by the petitioners that a fair inquiry is not possible by him, the law officer of the Waqf Board was ordered to inquire into the matter, who submitted his report dated 11.08.2021, wherein two deficiencies were found in the Management of the Waqf. Firstly, the petitioner no. 1 had undertaken some constructions in connection with the Waqf, but without permission of the Board. Moreover, the Board was not informed for making necessary entries about the said constructions in its records; Secondly, it is said that the Waqf also runs a Madarsa Darul Uloom Mohammadia. Firstly, the petitioner no. 1 had undertaken some constructions in connection with the Waqf, but without permission of the Board. Moreover, the Board was not informed for making necessary entries about the said constructions in its records; Secondly, it is said that the Waqf also runs a Madarsa Darul Uloom Mohammadia. However on inquiry, it was found that its functioning is being managed by a separate society and not by the petitioner which has been taken as a deficiency, by the Board. The Board by means of the impugned order has opined that the term of the petitioner no. 1 having expired and another committee having been elected by the locals, the latter had been appointed to manage the Waqf in question. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without any opportunity of hearing and that it is a non speaking order. In this regard, he relies upon Sub section 2 of Section 67 of the Waqf Act, 1995. 6. The petitioner's application for extension of term has been rejected and another Committee of Management has been appointed to manage the Waqf in question. 7. First and foremost, we would like to refer to Section 3 (i) of the Waqf Act, 1995 which defines the term 'mutawalli' to mean any person appointed, either verbally or under any deed or instrument by which a waqf has been created, or by a competent authority, to be the mutawalli of a waqf and includes any person who is a mutawalli of a waqf by virtue of any custom or who is a naib-mutawalli, khandim, mujawar, sajjadanashin, amin or other person appointed by a mutawalli to perform the duties of a mutawalli and save as otherwise provided in this Act, any person, committee or corporation for the time being, managing or administering any waqf or waqf property. 8. The definition of mutawalli, as referred herein above, thus includes a committee. We now consider the provisions of Section 63 of the Act, 1995 which reads as under: "63. 8. The definition of mutawalli, as referred herein above, thus includes a committee. We now consider the provisions of Section 63 of the Act, 1995 which reads as under: "63. Power to appoint mutawallis in certain cases - When there is a vacancy in the office of the mutawalli of a waqf and there is no one to be appointed under the terms of the deed of the waqf, or where the right of any person to act as mutawalli is disputed, the board may appoint any person to act as mutawalli for such period and on such conditions as it may think fit." 9. The provision for appointment of mutawalli is contained in the above quoted Section 63. As already stated mutawalli includes a committee, therefore, provision for appointment of a committee of management to manage the Waqf is also contained in Section 63 of the Act, 1995. 10. We asked the counsel for the parties as to where is the provision for extension of term of committee of management or mutawalli under the Act, 1995, but none of the counsels could place before the Court any such provision nor could the Court find any such provision in the Act, 1995. The provision for appointment of a mutawalli/committee of management is Section 63, unless of course, there is a provision in this regard in the Waqf deed in which case it is governed by such deed independent of Section 63. Now, it is the admitted factual position that the petitioner's term expired initially on 22.01.2018 which was extended till 21.01.2021. This extension, in fact, was a fresh appointment, as there is no provision for extension. In this scenario, the application of the petitioner, as claimed, for extension of its term was not maintainable in the first place. At best it could be treated as an application for appointment as mutawalli of the Waqf concerned. 11. On being asked, we have also been informed that in case of Waqf Al-al Khair that is a public waqf, the local residents elect a committee of management and then forward the same to the concerned Board which considers appointment of such committee of management. In the present case, there is nothing to show that the petitioner- Committee of Management was ever so elected for appointment as mutawalli under Section 63 of the Act, 1995. In the present case, there is nothing to show that the petitioner- Committee of Management was ever so elected for appointment as mutawalli under Section 63 of the Act, 1995. We are of the view that the petitioner's application for extension of its term was not maintainable in the first place. In any case, there is no indefeasible right in favour of the petitioner to continue as Committee of Management or to be appointed as such afresh. 12. Now, coming to the other aspect of the matter as already noticed earlier, another committee of management was elected by the local residents and their names were forwarded to the Board which has been appointed as mutawalli of the Waqf. However, while doing so on a complaint being made, a report was called for wherein two deficiencies have been discussed in the impugned order. It is only on account of this that the petitioner is claiming the application of Section 67 of the Act, 1995. We are of the opinion that once the term of the committee of management expired on 21.01.2021 and it was not extended, then, it had no right to function after that, legally and substantively. Therefore, as Section 67 applies only when there is a committee of management functioning in terms of Section 63, there was no question of application of Section 67 of the Act, 1995. Section 67 deals with supervision and supersession of committee of management, meaning thereby, an existing committee of management as appointed under Section 63. The petitioner was not such a committee, therefore, there is no question of application of Section 67. We are in fact of the opinion that the Board could have avoided commenting on the alleged deficiencies brought to its notice in the inquiry ordered especially, as the said inquiry report was never given to the petitioners nor was the petitioner confronted with the same with an opportunity of hearing as alleged. Therefore, in these circumstances, we uphold the order appointing another committee of management and decline the claim of the petitioner for extension of its term. Therefore, in these circumstances, we uphold the order appointing another committee of management and decline the claim of the petitioner for extension of its term. We, at the same time, provide that none of the observations in the order of the Board as regards the alleged deficiencies by the petitioner shall be read against it, unless of course, there is any occasion to take action against any member of the committee of management which can be done only in accordance with law after due opportunity of hearing. With these observations, we decline to interfere with the impugned order. 13. With these observations, this petition is disposed of.