Rajiv Roy, J. – Heard Mr. Syed Firoz Raja learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Helal Ahmad duly assisted by Md. Anjum Akhtar representing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 as also Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, learned AC to GA-9. 2. The petitioner rushed to the court merely on the basis of notice issued vide letter no. 1239 dated 04.07.217 by the office of the respondent no. 3, the Bihar State Shia Waqf Board (henceforth for short ‘the Wakf Board’) asking him to submit show cause why action be not taken against him under Waqf Act 1985 (amended 2013) in view of the fact that earlier notice vide letter no. 62 dated 30.01.2017 directing him to provide details of the Hasan Imam Waqf Estate has not been completed. 3. Mr. Syed Firoz Raja, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent nos. 2 & 3 do not have any authority to sent any notice to the petitioner in view of the fact that they do not come within their preview of the facts. 4. The facts in brief are as follows: – (i) on 28th April, 1931 the said Mr. Hasan Imam executed a deed of Waqf-alal-Aulad in respect of his properties in which Mrs. Nattie Imam was the sole Mutawalli of the 16 Annas Estate. In the different clauses of the said deed it has been indicated as to how one after the other the different family members of Mr. Hasan Imam were to become the Mutawalli. In the event of his line becoming extinct, the ultimate benefit was to go to the poor Muslim residing at Neura for their education and for maintenance of a mosque; (ii) on the 7th April1973, the operation of the 1954 Act was extended to Bihar Section 1 (3) of this Act provides that the Act shall come into force in a State to which the Act extends on such date as the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint in this behalf for that State. Section 69 (2) of the Act provides that if immediately before the commencement of the Act in any State, there is in force in that State any Law which corresponds to this Act that corresponding Law shall stand repealed. Section 69 (2) of the Act provides that if immediately before the commencement of the Act in any State, there is in force in that State any Law which corresponds to this Act that corresponding Law shall stand repealed. As an effect of this sub-section the aforesaid 1947 Bihar Act stood repealed with effect from the 7th April, 1973; (iii) subsequently, ‘the Board” (respondent no.2) was established. On the 16th November, 1973, the Bihar State Shia Waqf Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Board") issued a notice to the then petitioner af subset CWJC No.258 of 1974 enclosing a copy of petition dated the 27th July, 1923, filed by Master Mirza Amirullah Begasking her to show cause by the 24th November, 1973 as to why the reliefs sought in the said petition be not granted. It was further stated that the matter would be considered by the Board on the 25th November, 1973; (iv) the petitioner, in reply to the said notice, by a letter dated the 21st November, 1973, informed ‘the Board’ that she was the sole Mutawalli as also beneficiary of Block B of the aforesaid Hasan Imam Waqf Estate under the decree of this court, dated the 23rd February, 1967, passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No.260 of 1966, in which the Bihar Subai Shia-Majlise- Awqaf was a party and the scheme given by the said Majlis had been incorporated in the order of this court. It was further stated that the Hasan Imam Waqt Estate was a Waqf-alal-Aulad Estate and the Board had no jurisdiction to interfere with its affairs. It was further stated that the Hasan Imam Waqt Estate was a Waqf-alal-Aulad Estate and the Board had no jurisdiction to interfere with its affairs. A copy of the said reply was marked as Annexure-7 to the said writ application; (v) according to the then petitioner, in spite of the fact that the provisions of the 1954 Act were not applicable to the Waqf-alal-Aulad, the respondent-Board published a notice in the two English dailies of Patna, namely, the Indian Nation and the Searchlight, dated the 30th November, 1973, stating that in view of the resolution, dated the 25th November, 1973, it was being notified for general information of the public interested in Waqfalal- Aulad, in general, and Hasan Imam Waqf Estate, in particular, that any agreement of sale or lease, or any sale or mase, in respect of the said Hasan Imam Waqt Estate, without obtaining prior sanction of the Board, would be illegal, void and inoperative, and that no such sanction had been given by the Board; (vi) by a letter, dated 5th of December, 1973, the Board forwarded a copy of resolution no.19, dated the 25 November, 1973, to the said petitioner informing her that it had decided to entrust the Chairman of the Board to make an enquiry relating to the allegations made by Master Mirza Amirullah Beg; (vii) by another letter, dated 6th December, 1973, a copy of resolution no.35 of the Board, dated the 25th November, 1973, was forwarded to Mr. Mehdi Imam, (Annexure-3 to the said writ application). From this resolution, it appears that the Board, considering it expedient to ensure proper maintenance and security of the properties, appointed Mr. S.A. Abbas, a member of the Board, as the Enquiry Officer under Section 45 (i) (b) of the 1954 Act for submitting an enquiry report; (viii) It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that ultimately the then petitioner who was managing the affairs of the Hasan Imam Estate moved before this Court in CWJC No. 258 of 2019 and CWJC No. 289 of 1974 (Begum Asma Jafar Imam vs. The State of Bihar & Others) with C.W.J.C. 289 of 1974 (S. Mehdi Imam vs. The Bihar State Shia Wakf Board & Anr). The petitioner in that case challenged the paragraph 1 of the order as follows; – “The petitioners in these two writ applications challenge the authority of the Bihar State Shia Wakf Board, established under section 9 of the Wakf Act, 1954 (Act No. 29 of 1954) - hereinafter referred to as the "1954 Act" to interfere with the administration, management and affairs of Hasan Imam Wakf Estate, on the ground, inter alia, that the provisions of the 1954 Act are not applicable to the said estate. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 258 is the daughter and the petitioner in C.W.J.C.No. 289 is the son of the said Mr. Hasan Imam. These two writ applications have, therefore, been heard together, with the consent of the parties, as common questions of law and fact are involved in them, and this judgment will govern them both.” 5. The counter-affidavit was filed by respondent board in the said writ petition which read as follows: – 10. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Board saying that it has power and jurisdiction to supervise the affairs of the Imam Wakf Estate in exercise of the powers conferred on it under the 1954 Act. In the said counter-affidavit it has been stated that Mr. Amirullah Beg had sent a petition making allegations against the petitioner and the said petition was considered by the Board and the aforesaid actions had been taken in the interests of the Imam War Estate. It has also been asserted that the said Amirullah Beg was a necessary party to the writ application which is not maintainable in his absence. 11. A wakf, in its premitive sense, means a "detention". In the language of the Muslim law, it signifies a dedication of a thing (corpus) in the implied ownership of the Almighty in such a manner that its profits (ufrusuot) may revert to, or be applied for, the benefit of the mankind; and that its validity is founded on the Rule laid down by the Prophet himself, who declared "tie up the property (Asi-corpus) and devote the usufruot to human being; it is not to be sold or made the subject of gift or inheritance; devote its produce to your children or kindred and poor in the way of God". As such, a wakif extinguishes the right of the wakif or the dedicator and transfers the ownership to God. As such, a wakif extinguishes the right of the wakif or the dedicator and transfers the ownership to God. The Mutawalli is the manager of the wakf, but the property does not vest in him. The purpose for which a wakf could be created must be one recognized by the Mahomedan Law as religious pious or charitable.” 6. A Division bench of Patna High Court thereafter, vide an order dated 1.07.1974 decided the same as follows: – “On behalf of the respondent Board another objection has been taken on the question of the maintainability of the writ application, that is, Mirza Amirullah Beg is a necessary party to the writ application in view of the fact that actions had been taken by the Board on his petition. In my opinion, when it has been held that the provisions of the 1954 Act themselves do not apply to the Imam Wakf Estate and the respondent Board has no jurisdiction in law to interfere with the management and administration of the said estate, any step taken by the Board, either on its own initiative or at the instance of the aforesaid Mirza Amirullah Beg, is a question which is not relevant orgermane for the purposes of the present case. No relief has been asked for by the petitioner against the said Amirullah Beg. In my opinion, therefore, there is no substance in the objection raised on behalf of the respondent Board. In the result, C.W.J.C.No. 258 of 1974 is allowed and the respondent Board is restrained by a writ of mandamus from interfering with the administration and management of the Hasan Iman Wakf Estate and the impugned communications and resolutions are here by quashed as having been issued and made without any authority in law. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.” 7. The order stands reported in AIR 1975 Patna 48 8. He as such submits that in the light of the Division bench’s order as stated above, the notice is fit to be quashed if not withdrawn by the respondent nos. 2 & 3. 9. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 & 3 in which they have taken the plea that in a case in CR. 2 & 3. 9. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 & 3 in which they have taken the plea that in a case in CR. No. 1741 of 2005 disposed of on 24.06.2008, the court held that the Board has supervisory and superintending power to control over Wakf Estate under the provisions of Wakf Act for the safeguard of the wakf property. 10. Thus the learned counsel for the Wakf Board submits that it was just a notice and the petitioner should have provided the details so that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 could have come to a decision and if that had gone against him, the same could have been challenged. He as such, submits that it is premature petition and fit to be dismissed. However, he has no answer to the query whether the notice is in the teeth of the Division Bench’s order of Begum Asma Jafar Imam (supra) or not. 11. Mr. Syed Firoz Raja in the reply to the said argument of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 submits that so far as the observation in CR. No. 1741 of 2005 is concerned, the same is general in nature and not specific to the present petitioner’s case and further it is not clear whether the attention of the court was brought to the order in C.W.J.C. No. 258 of 1974 Begum Asma Jafar Imam (supra) or not. 12. Having heard the rival parties, this court find force in the submissions put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Division bench’s order in Begum Asma Jafar Imam (supra) is clear and the concluding part has already been incorporated in this order. The Wakf Board (respondent no. 2 and 3) having not challenged the said order and/or no such averments has been made in the counter-affidavit, the dust having been settled, it cannot be allowed to raise the issue by shooting off a notice although to be fair to them, no decision has been taken subsequently. 13. Be that as it may, since the matter has come before this court and learned counsel for the petitioner has made extensive arguments clarifying the entire issue, this court is duty bound to take the route of the Division Bench order passed in Begum Asma Jafar Imam (supra). 14. The letter no. 13. Be that as it may, since the matter has come before this court and learned counsel for the petitioner has made extensive arguments clarifying the entire issue, this court is duty bound to take the route of the Division Bench order passed in Begum Asma Jafar Imam (supra). 14. The letter no. 1239 dated 04.02.2017 issued by the respondent no. 3 (as contained in Annexure 1 to this petition) stands quashed. 15. The writ petition stands allowed with the aforesaid observation.