- (1.) HEARD Sri M.A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, assisted by Sri Mohiuddin Khan, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, Sri Arshad Ahsan Siddiqui for respondent No. 3 and Sri Mohammad Aslam Khan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4.
(2.) WITH the consent of the parties' counsel, the writ petition is being disposed of finally. The petitioners admittedly were members of the Committee of Management of the Waqf in question. They have challenged the order dated 17.12.2008 passed by the Chairman of the Board respondent No. 2, by which they have been removed from the Committee vide order dated 17.12.2008 and new members have replaced them. The main thrust of the petitioners' counsel is that in view of Section 67(6) of the Waqf Act, the petitioners could not be removed from the Committee without issuing a show-cause notice and affording an opportunity of hearing.
(3.) SRI Mohd. Arif Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners has opposed the petition and submitted that the two notices were issued to the petitioner No. 2. He further submits that the impugned order itself says that notices were issued to the petitioner No. 2, but he did not turn up; therefore, taking into consideration the complaint made against him, the matter was heard and orders passed. As directed by the Court, the record has been produced by Sri Mohiuddin Khan, learned counsel for the Waqf Board. The record says that two notices were issued to petitioner No. 2. Out of them, one is show-cause notice, which is said to have been sent but there is no evidence of its despatch or service upon the petitioner No. 2. The argument of learned respondents' counsel is that notices were sent by UPC, though it is also not clear from the record whether they were actually sent under UPC.;