- (1.) WE have already quashed the impugned order dated 9/13th July, 1999, as contained in Annexure 11 to the writ petition and also the notification issued by the State Government, publish ed in official Gazette vide the order dated 27-8-1999 we are hereby setting the reasons for allowing the writ petition.
(2.) THE petitioner who was admittedly appointed at Naib-Mutwalli and was look ing after the property of Waqf after the death of Mutwalli with due permission of the Board, has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 9/13th July, 1999, passed by the Chief Executive Officer of U. P. Surini Central Board of Waqf by virtue of which the management has been taken over directly by the Board for a period of five years or till the dispute regarding "tauliat" (Mutwalliship) is decided, whichever is earlier. The learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that this order passed by the Chief Executive Officer in purported exercise of powers under Section 65 (1) of the Waqf Act, 1995, does not conform to the provisions mentioned therein. Further the argument is that under Section 65 of the above Act the Board can take the management on two conditions, namely (i) where no suitable person is available for appointment as Mutwalli of a Waqf, or (li) where the Board is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing that the filling up of the vacancy in the office of Mutwalli is prejudicial to the interest of the Waqf. The impugned order does not indicate that any of the two ingredients were cither con sidered or were present at the time of passing of the said order and the sole reason that there is a dispute regarding Mulwalli-ship cannot be a ground for taking over the management under Sec tion 65 of the above Act particularly when the petitioner has been appointed as Nab-Mutwalli and has been looking after the affairs of the Waqf allegedly satisfactorily after the death of the Mutwalli with the permission of the Court. It has further been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it is a Waqf Alalaulad and he being the deceased, out of Waqf is entitled to be appointed as Mutwalli whereas the opposite party No. 4 is (sic) cannot be ap pointed Mutwalli. The nature of the Waqf as Waqf Aial-aulad is being disputed by the opposite parties.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respon dents Sri Umesh Chandra submitted that by inference if there is a dispute regarding ap pointment of Mutwalli the Board was con ferred with the powers to issue orders under Section 65 (1) for taking away the Manage ment in its own hands. It has further been submitted that an application was moved by opp. party No. 4 on 6th July, 1999 and there fore, a dispute has arisen as to who should be appointed as Mutwalli. The learned Counsel for opposite parties also tried to impress upon the Court that there was certain charges against the Naib-Mutwalli, therefore, it will not be in the fitness of things to inter fere in the impugned order.;