JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. The petitioner/Central Majlis-E-Shoora Jamaia Masjid ('the Masjid' for short) is knocking at the doors of this Court calling in question Notice dtd. 15/7/2022 issued by the 2nd respondent/Karnataka State Board of Auqaf ('the Board' for short) and an order dtd. 10/8/2022 passed by the 2nd respondent placing the Committee under suspension. 2. Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:- The petitioner is the Masjid, the Managing Committee managing the administration of Auqaf property in Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District. The said Masjid was constituted on 8/3/2021 and the term of the Masjid which was constituted by the 3rd respondent was for a period of three years. The tenure of the Masjid was to end on 7/3/2024. After about 16 months of the Masjid constituted, alleging huge misappropriation of funds, a notice comes to be issued by the Board invoking Sec. 64 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) indicating to the Masjid that enquiry would be held under sub-rule (2) of Rules 46 of the Karnataka Waqf Rules, 2017 (for short 'the Rules'). Explanation called for from the Masjid was in terms of the said notice. The Masjid appears to have submitted its reply pursuant to which an order comes to be passed on 10/8/2022 keeping the Masjid under suspension. On both these acts, one being issuance of notice under Sec. 64 of the Act and the other keeping the Masjid under suspension, the Masjid is before this Court in the subject petition. 3. Heard Sri. Shahbaaz Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Smt. Shwetha Krishnappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt. S.R. Anuradha, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend with vehemence that the entire proceeding instituted by the Board is contrary to law. It is the submission of the learned counsel that Sec. 64 is invoked only for removal of Mutawalli. The Masjid is not Mutawalli nor Mutawalli is the Masjid and further proceedings placing the Masjid under suspension is again contrary to Sec. 64 of the Act. It is the submission of the learned counsel that Sec. 64 is invoked only for removal of Mutawalli. The Masjid is not Mutawalli nor Mutawalli is the Masjid and further proceedings placing the Masjid under suspension is again contrary to Sec. 64 of the Act. The learned counsel would submit that supersession of the Masjid can happen only under Sec. 67 of the Act and by invoking Sec. 64 of the Act, Sec. 67 is rendered redundant. He would seek quashment of the entire action. 5. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel representing the Board would refute the submissions to contend that Mutawalli is a Masjid of Mutawallis. Therefore, invocation of Sec. 64 is not contrary to law but in tune with law. She would contend that Sec. 67 operates in a different scenario and is invokable only when the Masjid has to be superseded on any allegation. Without prejudice to the aforesaid contention, the learned senior counsel would submit that the remedy available to the petitioner is by approaching the Tribunal under Sec. 83 of the Act and as such the writ petition filed is not maintainable at this stage. 6. In reply to the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner would take this Court to Sec. 18 of the Act and seeks to demonstrate as to what forms the Masjid and would contend that the entire act of the respondent/Board being one without jurisdiction, it cannot be said that the writ petition is not maintainable and since they are acts without jurisdiction the writ petition is undoubtedly maintainable. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. The petitioner/Masjid was constituted on 8/3/2021 and the tenure of the Masjid was to end on 7/3/2014. On certain allegations of misappropriation upon the petitioner/ Masjid by the Board, a notice comes to be issued pending conduct of an enquiry seeking reply from the hands of the petitioner. The contents of the notice which are germane read as follows:- "No.KTW/MSC/01/TKR/91-92 Date: 15/7/2022 NOTICE FORM NO.50 [See Rule 58(1)] Notice to Office bearers of Central Masjlis-E-Shoora, Town, Tumakuru District under Sec. 64(3) of the Waqf Act. The contents of the notice which are germane read as follows:- "No.KTW/MSC/01/TKR/91-92 Date: 15/7/2022 NOTICE FORM NO.50 [See Rule 58(1)] Notice to Office bearers of Central Masjlis-E-Shoora, Town, Tumakuru District under Sec. 64(3) of the Waqf Act. Whereas, you are appointed as President and Office bearers to the managing committee of the Central Masjlis-E-Shoora, Kunigal Town, Tumakuru District, vide Board's Order No.KTW/MSC/01/TKR/1991-92 dated 08- 03-2021 for a period of (03) three years. The Chief Executive Officer and Assistant Secretary, Karnataka State Board of Auqaf held inspected to above said Waqf Institution on dtd. 7/7/2022 and reported the follows. Managing Committee has not followed the Waqf Property Lease Rules, 2014 and violated the Karnataka Waqf Rules, 2017. ... ... ... ... Therefore, by virtue of the powers conferred under Sec. 64(3) of the Waqf Act, notice is hereby given that an inquiry will be held under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 46 of Karnataka State Waqf Rules, 2016 by the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf. You are therefore called upon to furnish your explanation, if any, to the aforesaid charges, within seven days, from the date of service of this Notice. Failing which, the Board shall proceed with the inquiry and take a decision under Sec. 64 of the Waqf Act." (Emphasis added) The allegation is of huge misappropriation of funds. The notice is issued invoking Sec. 64(3) of the Act. It is issued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 58 in Form No.50. It becomes germane to notice certain provisions of the Act. Sec. 3 of the Act deals with definitions. "Mutawalli" is defined under sub-sec. The notice is issued invoking Sec. 64(3) of the Act. It is issued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 58 in Form No.50. It becomes germane to notice certain provisions of the Act. Sec. 3 of the Act deals with definitions. "Mutawalli" is defined under sub-sec. (i) of Sec. 3 of the Act and reads as follows:- "(i) "Mutawalli" means 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, khadim, 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: Provided that no member of a committee or corporation shall be deemed to be a mutawalli unless such member is an office bearer of such committee or corporation; Provided further that the mutawalli shall be a citizen of India and shall fulfil such other qualifications as may be prescribed: Provided also that in case a waqf has specified any qualifications, such qualifications may be provided in the rules as may be made by the State Government;" (Emphasis supplied) A Mutawalli would mean a person appointed either verbally or under any deed by virtue of any custom for protection and administration of waqf property, save as otherwise provided, any person, committee or corporation for the time being managing or administering any waqf is also a Mutawalli. The proviso directs that no member of the Committee or Corporation shall be deemed to be a Mutawalli unless he is an office-bearer of such Committee or Corporation. What would unmistakably emerge from the aforesaid definition is that a Mutawalli is a part of the Committee. A Committee could be a group of persons or Mutawallis. The definition is very clear that a Committee or a Corporation for the time being managing/administering any waqf is a Mutawalli. Therefore, the soul of the provision is, a person should manage or administer a waqf as a Mutawalli; it can be an individual; it can be a Committee or it can be a Corporation. The definition is very clear that a Committee or a Corporation for the time being managing/administering any waqf is a Mutawalli. Therefore, the soul of the provision is, a person should manage or administer a waqf as a Mutawalli; it can be an individual; it can be a Committee or it can be a Corporation. In the considered view of this court this would be definition of Mutawalli. The other provision that requires consideration is Sec. 64 of the Act. The notice issued to the petitioner is invoking Sec. 64 of the Act. Sec. 64 of the Act reads as follows: "64. Removal of Mutawalli. -(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law or the deed of waqf, the Board may remove a mutawalli from his office if such mutawalli - (a) has been convicted more than once of an offence punishable under Sec. 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 waqf; 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 subsec. (2) of Sec. 46; or (h) is interested, directly or indirectly, in a subsisting lease in respect of any waqf property, or in any contract made with, or any work being done for, the waqf or is in arrears in respect of any sum due by him to such waqf; or (i) continuously neglects his duties or commits any misfeasance, malfeasance, misapplication of funds or breach of trust in relation to the waqf or in respect of any money or other waqf 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 fradulently deals with the property of the waqf. (2) The removal of a person from the office of the mutawalli shall not affect his personal rights, if any, in respect of the waqf 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 sub-sec. (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-sec. (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-sec. (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 waqf, 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-sec. (6) Where any appeal is filed by the mutawalli to the Tribunal under sub-sec. (4), the Board may make an application to the Tribunal for the appointment of a receiver to manage the waqf 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 waqf and direct the receiver so appointed to ensure that the customary or religious rights of the mutawalli and of the waqf are safeguarded. (7) Where a mutawalli has been removed from his office under sub-sec. (1), the Board may, by order, direct the mutawalli to deliver possession of the waqf 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 waqf property. (8) A mutawalli of a waqf removed from his office under this Sec. shall not be eligible for re-appointment as a mutawalli of that waqf for a period of five years from the date of such removal." (Emphasis supplied) Sec. 64 directs that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the Board i.e., Waqf Board may remove a Mutawalli from his office if such Mutawalli would indulge in conditions (a) to (k). Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 64 mandates that no action shall be taken by the Board unless it has held an inquiry in a manner known to law and the decision has been taken by majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of the Board. Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 64 directs that an aggrieved person, within one month, may file an appeal against the order to the Tribunal. Sub-sec. (5) mandates that where any inquiry under sub-sec. (3) is proposed or commenced against any Mutawalli, the Board, if it is of the opinion to suspend such Mutawalli until conclusion of the inquiry, may do so. The proviso directs that no suspension for a period exceeding ten days shall be made after giving the Mutawalli a reasonable opportunity of being heard against the proposed action. (3) is proposed or commenced against any Mutawalli, the Board, if it is of the opinion to suspend such Mutawalli until conclusion of the inquiry, may do so. The proviso directs that no suspension for a period exceeding ten days shall be made after giving the Mutawalli a reasonable opportunity of being heard against the proposed action. On a coalesce of the aforesaid provisions what would unmistakably emerge is that an inquiry against a Mutawalli can be held; the Mutawalli can be placed under suspension and on such suspension, the Mutawalli has remedy of filing an appeal before the Waqf Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short). 9. The impugned notice issued to the petitioner is under subsec. (3) of Sec. 64 of the Act. The other impugned order that is passed against the petitioner is placing it under suspension under sub-Sec. (5) of Sec. 64. Therefore, the order that is passed is in tune with Sec. 64. If a Mutawalli as defined under Sec. 3 would mean a Committee, then invocation of power under Sec. 64 cannot be found fault with, as both the actions of placing the Mutawalli/Masjid under suspension in contemplation of an inquiry are in tune with sub-Sec. 5 of Sec. 64 of the Act. The other provision on which the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance is, Sec. 67 of the Act. Sec. 67 of the Act reads as follows: "67. Supervision and supersession of committee of management. The other provision on which the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance is, Sec. 67 of the Act. Sec. 67 of the Act reads as follows: "67. Supervision and supersession of committee of management. -(1) Whenever the supervision or management of a waqf is vested in any committee appointed by the waqf, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, such committee shall continue to function until it is superseded by the Board or until the expiry of its term as may be specified by the waqf, whichever is earlier: Provided that such committee shall function under the direction, control and supervision of the Board and abide by such directions as the Board may issue from time to time: Provided further that if the Board is satisfied that any scheme for the management of a waqf by a committee is inconsistent with any provision of this Act or of any rule made thereunder or with the directions of the waqf, it may, at any time, modify the scheme in such manner as may be necessary to bring it in conformity with the directions of the waqf or of the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. (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-sec. (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. (3) Every order made by the Board under sub-sec. (2) shall be published in the prescribed manner and on such publication shall be binding on the mutawalli and all persons having any interest in the waqf. (4) Any order made by the Board under sub-sec. (3) Every order made by the Board under sub-sec. (2) shall be published in the prescribed manner and on such publication shall be binding on the mutawalli and all persons having any interest in the waqf. (4) Any order made by the Board under sub-sec. (2) shall be final: Provided that any person aggrieved by the order made under sub-sec. (2) may, within sixty days from the date of the order, appeal to the Tribunal: Provided further that the Tribunal shall have no power to suspend the operation of the order made by the Board pending such appeal. (5) The Board shall, whenever it supersedes any committee under sub-sec. (2), constitute a new committee of management simultaneously with the order made by it under sub-sec. (2). (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-sec. s, the Board may, instead of superseding any committee under sub-sec. (2), remove any member thereof if it is satisfied that such member has abused his position as such member or had knowingly acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the waqf, and every such order for the removal of any member shall be served upon him by registered post: Provided that no order for the removal of the member shall be made unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action: Provided further that any member aggrieved by any order for his removal from the membership of the committee may, within a period of thirty days from the date of service of the order on him, prefer an appeal against such order to the Tribunal and the Tribunal may, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant and the Board of being heard, confirm, modify or reverse the order made by the Board and the order made by the Tribunal in such appeal shall be final." (Emphasis supplied) Sec. 67 deals with supervision and supersession of a Committee of Management. The provision vests power in the Board for reasons to be recorded in writing that the Waqf is being mismanaged and it is in the interest of proper management it becomes necessary to supersede such Committee and on such supersession any direction insofar as it relates to constitution of the Committee shall cease to have any force. A conjoint reading of sub-sec. A conjoint reading of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 67 of the Act and also the proviso thereto would indicate that if the waqf is being mismanaged by the Managing Committee it can be superseded. Sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 67 mandates whenever the Committee is superseded, the Board has the power to constitute a new Committee simultaneously. Therefore, the power under Sec. 67 is for supersession and appointment of a new Committee. The actions that are impugned in the case at hand are neither supersession nor appointment of a new Committee. 10. What is impugned is a notice issued under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 64 and the action taken under sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 64 placing the Masjid - Committee under suspension pending enquiry. Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 64 supra permits a Mutawalli who is aggrieved to file an appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, Sec. 67 is not the provision that is invokable in the facts of the case at hand. If Mutawalli is the Committee and the Committee the Mutawalli, Sec. 64 of the Act is the one that is appropriately invoked in the case at hand. Therefore, the impugned action does not become dehors jurisdiction. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner lays much emphasis upon the words "save as otherwise provided" in Sec. 3. The words 'save as otherwise provided' cannot be read in isolation. They have to be read in conjunction with the words that it keeps company with. The words 'save as otherwise provided' a Committee, a Mutawalli would mean, if the Committee is defined elsewhere in the Act, it is an admitted fact that the Act does not define what is the Committee or what constitutes a Committee. On the other hand, who is a Mutawalli is defined unequivocally. Much reliance is again placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon Sec. 18 of the Act to contend that the Committee is defined under Sec. 18 of the Act and therefore Sec. 3 of the Act cannot be interpreted for the Mutawalli to be a Committee. Sec. 18 reads as follows: "18. Committees of the Board. -(1) The Board may, whenever it considers necessary, establish either generally or for a particular purpose or for any specified area or areas committees for the supervision of auqaf. Sec. 18 reads as follows: "18. Committees of the Board. -(1) The Board may, whenever it considers necessary, establish either generally or for a particular purpose or for any specified area or areas committees for the supervision of auqaf. (2) The constitution, functions and duties and the term of office of such committees shall be determined from time to time by the Board: Provided that it shall not be necessary for the members of such committees to be members of the Board." Sec. 18 does not define a Committee. Sec. 18 deals with Committees of the Board which would mean the Committees that the Board constitutes for every auqaf. It cannot be equated with a Mutawalli or the contents of definition of Mutawalli cannot be paraphrased to that of the constitution of Committees by the Board. The reliance placed is thus, misplaced. Therefore, the impugned action of order being passed under Sec. 64 of the Act is sustainable as it is in tune with law. 12. It is further alleged that notice is issued under Form-50 in terms of Rule 58. Form-50 is a template for issuance of notice to Mutawalli under Sec. 64(3) of the Act. This is issued under Rule 58 of the Rules. Rule 58 reads as follows: "58. Procedure regarding removal of Mutawalli, - (1) The Chief Executive Officer shall issue a Notice in Form 50 to the Mutawalli concerned against whom action is contemplated under Sec. 64. (2) The Board shall conduct Summary Inquiry in the manner prescribed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 50. (3) The Chief Executive Officer of the Board shall issue a notice in Form 51 to the concerned Mutawalli under sub-sec. 5(3) of Sec. 64 of the Act, and after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard and place his findings before the Board for consideration." Rule 58 deals with procedure for removal of Mutawalli against whom action is contemplated under Sec. 64 of the Act. Therefore, the form that is used to issue notice to the petitioner is also in consonance with law. Thus, the plea that the entire action is without jurisdiction tumbles down, as these are acts which are within the jurisdiction of the Board and not dehors to it. 13. The proviso to sub-sec. Therefore, the form that is used to issue notice to the petitioner is also in consonance with law. Thus, the plea that the entire action is without jurisdiction tumbles down, as these are acts which are within the jurisdiction of the Board and not dehors to it. 13. The proviso to sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 64 directs that no suspension for a period exceeding 10 days shall be made after giving the Mutawalli a reasonable opportunity of being heard against the said action is what merits acceptance qua the contention of the petitioner. Admittedly, the Board has passed the order on 10/8/2022 placing the petitioner under suspension. In terms of the proviso to sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 64, the period of suspension cannot exceed 10 days. No material is placed on record by the respondent/Board to demonstrate that the period is extended after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard against the proposed action to the petitioner. But, the learned senior counsel would submit that the order of suspension was passed on 10/8/2022 and the writ petition is filed on 20/8/2022. Even before any order of extension of suspension could be passed an interim order of stay was granted by this Court. Therefore, there is no proceeding that the Board has undertaken for extension of suspension. The said submission merits acceptance. Therefore, it is for the Board now, within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to issue notice to the petitioner regarding extension of suspension beyond 10 days and pass appropriate orders, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the interim order operating would continue for a period of 10 days as aforesaid. 14. Since the aforesaid actions of the respondent/Board are held to be valid with which it has jurisdiction, the petitioner will have the remedy as is available under sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 64 of the Act in the event of a prejudicial order being passed against it. Sec. 83 of the Act, which also deals with constitution of the Tribunal permits any Mutawalli to approach the Tribunal against any order passed by the Board. Therefore, the remedy for the petitioner will be before the Tribunal and not before this Court straight away, unless they are actions which are without jurisdiction, the impugned actions are not. 15. Sec. 83 of the Act, which also deals with constitution of the Tribunal permits any Mutawalli to approach the Tribunal against any order passed by the Board. Therefore, the remedy for the petitioner will be before the Tribunal and not before this Court straight away, unless they are actions which are without jurisdiction, the impugned actions are not. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: O R D E R (i) Writ Petition is rejected qua the challenge to the impugned notice dtd. 15/7/2022 and the order dtd. 10/8/2022 issued by the 2nd respondent/Board. (ii) The Board is at liberty to pass appropriate orders in tune with proviso to sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 64 of the Act, if it is intending to continue the order of suspension passed against the petitioner on 10/8/2022. (iii) In the event the Board would not pass appropriate orders in terms of clause (ii), the impugned proceedings would all be rendered contrary to law and the petitioner would become entitled to all consequential benefits that would flow from the order snowballing into a nullity. (iv) The interim order subsisting shall continue for a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.