JUDGMENT : Heard Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 and Sri Amitabh Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material available on record. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following reliefs : ''I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27.8.2021 issued by the Respondent No. 2, copy whereof is contained in undated enquiry report as Annexure 7 to this writ petition. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned show-cause notice dated 27.8.2021 issued by Respondent No. 5. III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents not to interfere in the peaceful working of the Waqf by the petitioners Committee.'' 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned show-cause notice dated 27.8.2021 issued by the respondent No. 5-Assistant Secretary,Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board, Lucknow is without jurisdiction as the order of issuance of show-cause notice as provided under Section 67(2) of the Waqf Act, 1995 (in short the ''Act of 1995) must be passed by the Board and it cannot be passed by the Chairman alone. In the present matter, the Chairman alone has passed the order for issuance of show-cause notice on 25.8.2021 and the Chairman has no jurisdiction to pass such order, as such, the impugned notice has been issued in clear violation of Section 27 of the Act read with Section 32(2)(g) and proviso of Section 67(2) of the Act of 1995. While referring to the order passed by this Court in a Writ Petition i.e. Writ C No. 40148 of 2014 (C/M Waqf No. 62/248 Through Secretary Hazi Aqeel Ahmad v. State ofUttar Pradesh and 4 others), he submitted that in that matter, the writ petition was allowed and it was observed that Board cannot delegate its power taking a decision in relation to the removal of ''Mutwalli'', hence the impugned order should be quashed. 3. Contrary to it, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3. Contrary to it, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 submitted that Section 27 of the Act of 1995 (as amended by Waqf Amendment Act, 2013) authorizes the Board to delegate the powers and in exercise of that power, Office Memorandum No. 8171/CEO-2021 dated 23.3.2021 was issued delegating the powers, which reads as under : ''In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 27 of the Waqft Act 1995 (as amended by Waqf Amendment Act, 2013), theUttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board vide its order dated 15.3.2021 has made the following delegation of the powers of the Board : (A)............. (B)............... (C)............... (D) The Powers and functions of the Board under Section 36, 40, 41, 52, 52A, 53, 69, 70 and 71 are hereby delegated to the Chairperson and all other members of the Board, individually subject to the condition that no member of the Board shall pass any order in exercise of the powers of the Board conferred under the aforesaid sections of the Act, unless the file is allotted to him/her by the Chairperson. (E)......... (F).......... (G) The Chairperson of the Board is hereby authorized to initiate action and to prepare, the report to be placed before the Board for orders by the Board under Section 63, 64, 67 and 69 of the Waqf Act, 1995. However, the final order in cases converted under aforesaid Sections shall be passed by the Board.'' 4. Through this Memorandum, the Chairperson of the Board has been authorized to initiate action and to prepare the report to be placed before the Board for orders by the Board under Sections 63, 64, 67 and 69 of the Act of 1995. Thereafter, final order shall be passed by the Board. Hence, the Chairperson is authorized to issue a show-cause notice and the impugned show-cause notice is perfectly valid. 5. Considered the rival submissions and perused the record. Section 27 of the Act of 1995 provides as under : ''27. Thereafter, final order shall be passed by the Board. Hence, the Chairperson is authorized to issue a show-cause notice and the impugned show-cause notice is perfectly valid. 5. Considered the rival submissions and perused the record. Section 27 of the Act of 1995 provides as under : ''27. Delegation of powers by the Board.-The Board may, by a general or special order in writing, delegate to the Chairperson, any other member, the Chief Executive Officer or any other officer or servant of the Board or any area committee, subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified in the said order, such of its powers and duties under this Act, as it may deem necessary, except the powers and functions of the Board mentioned under clauses (c), (d), (g) and (j) of sub-section (2) of Section 32 and Section 110.]'' Section 67(2) of the Act of 1995 provides as under : ''67(2). Supervision and supersession of Committee of Management.-(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, and in the deed of the waqf the Board may, if it is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that a committee, referred to in sub-section (1) is not functioning properly and satisfactorily, or that the waqf is being mismanaged and that in the interest of its proper management, it is necessary so to do, by an order, supersede such committee, and, on such supersession, any direction of the waqf, in so far as it relates to the constitution of the committee, shall cease to have any force: Provided that the Board shall, before making any order superseding any committee, issue a notice setting forth therein the reasons for the proposed action and calling upon the Committee to show-cause within such time, not being less than one month, as may be specified in the notice, as to why such action shall not be taken.'' 6. Since the Board has delegated its powers as per Board's Office Memorandum referred above, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Chairperson has no power to issue the impugned notice, does not has any force. Since the Board has delegated its powers as per Board's Office Memorandum referred above, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Chairperson has no power to issue the impugned notice, does not has any force. So far as, the judgment referred which has been passed by this Court in Writ C No. 40148 of 2014 (C/M Waqf No. 62/248 Through Secretary Hazi Aqeel Ahmad v. State ofUttar Pradesh and 4 others) is concerned, that is not relevant in this matter as in the present case, the powers have been delegated as per the Board's Office Memorandum referred above. 7. In view of aforesaid, this writ petition deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.