- (1.) Nawab S. Kazim Ali Khan son of late Nawab S. Zulfikar Ali Khan, Mutawali Auqaf District Rampur is before this Court with following relief:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the show cause notice dated 12.09.2013 issued by respondent No. 2 under Section 64 of Waqf Act 1995 and the order dated 11.09.2013 and 08.05.2013 passed by respondent no. 2 and 3. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to ensure and audit of Waqf No. 1,2,3,4, 5 and 8,9,10,11,12,13,241,187 and accept the contribution to be made by the petitioner to the Board. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent no. 2 from proceeding on the basis of show cause notice dated 12.09.2013. (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."
(2.) Brief background of the case is that Waqf No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 187 and 241 Rampur are the Waqf Alal Khair [Public Chartiable Trust] situated at Rampur within the local territory of Rampur Estate as it has been. The waqf deed was prepared on 23.04.1942. Petitioner has further proceeded to mention that these waqfs in question were created and always manged and supervised by the rulers of Rampur as all these Sunni Auqafs mainly constitute Tombs of the Ex-Rulers and Mosque. Late H.H. Nawaz S. Raza Ali Khan after merger of Rampur framed rules in 1952 for management of Estate Auqafs in the changed scenario created separate office known as Auqaf Office of Rampur that was required to function under the control and supervision of Nawab and his family. Petitioner has further proceeded to mention that his father who happens to be the Ruler of Rampur Estate created the aforesaid Waqf by the royal order and Waqf deeds whereby the Right of Management was given to the Elder Male member of the family, accordingly the petitioner has been appointed as Mutwalli of the aforesaid waqf and accordingly has been managing the Waqf. Petitioner submits that on account of political motivation action has been sought to be initiated against him and in the said direction complaining mismanagement on the part of the petitioner and for not complying with the terms and conditions of the Waqf and the provision of Waqf Act 1995, complaint has been made. On the said complaint being made by Maqsood Ali dated 05.04.2013 an order was passed for making spot inspection and for submission of the report. Pursuant thereto waqf property in question has been examined and thereafter report in question has been submitted on 13.06.2013 recommending therein for action under Sections 64 (1), (g) (h) (i) (j) and (k) of Waqf Act 1995. After receiving the report in question the Chairman U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board on 05.09.2013 has proceeded to mention that after inquiry has been conducted and report has been submitted on 13.06.2013, same reflects that allegations against the Mutawalli are very serious and deserves scrutiny, and accordingly let a show cause notice under Section 64 of Waqf Act 1995 be issued to the Mutwalli giving 15 days time to him to submit his reply to the show cause notice fixing 26.09.2013 for personal hearing. After the said order in question has been passed by the Chairman U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board, pursuant thereto show cause notice has been issued under Section 64 of Waqf Act 1995 and the same has impelled the petitioner to be before this Court.
(3.) On the presentation of present writ petition in question Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate opened his argument by contending that entire proceedings which are being so undertaken pursuant to show cause notice dated 12.09.2013 are totally without jurisdiction for the simple reason that authority to take action against Mutawali has been conferred upon the Board constituted under Waqf Act 1995 and in view of this Chairman of the Board unilaterally has got no authority to initiate proceeding as has been sought to be done by him and accordingly entire proceeding so undertaken are without jurisdiction and this Court should quash the entire proceeding so undertaken as it would be nothing but an exercise in futility.;