Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS application is directed against the judgment and order dated June 3, 2005 passed by the learned West Bengal Waqf Tribunal in Appeal No.24 of 2004 thereby affirming resolution of the Board of Waqfs dated September 2, 2004 passed in respect of Item No.15 of the Board Committee in E.C. No.12078. The short fact necessary for the purpose of disposal of this application is that one Janab Fakir executed a deed of waqf dated December 15, 1931 in respect of his various properties and the said deed was registered. Accordingly, Janab Fakir Waqf Estate under E.C. No.12078 was formed as per terms of the deed of waqf.
(2.) TOSADDAK Fakir, father of the applicant, became the Mutwalli of the said Waqf Estate. On his demise, his two sons, namely, Toyab Ali Fakir and Morshed Ali Fakir (petitioner) became the Joint Mutwallis of the said Waqf Estate by an order dated May 20, 1969 passed by the Board of Waqfs. Thereafter, the opposite party nos.2 and 3 who are the descendants of the waqif filed an application before the Board of Waqfs demanding removal of the mutwalli on the ground of mismanagement, misleading and misappropriation etc. of the waqf properties and they prayed for appointment as mutwalli of the said Waqf Estate in place of the existing mutwallis. Accordingly, the Board of Waqfs issued notices to the parties. Both the parties placed their respective stance and an auditor of the Board of Waqfs was directed to make an enquiry about the allegations against the existing mutwallis. The auditor held an enquiry after issuance of notice upon both the parties and such enquiry report revealed that the other mutwalli, namely, Toyab Ali Fakir was dead. The enquiry report also revealed that there were grounds for removal of the existing mutwalli, that is, the petitioner under Section 64(1)(K) of the Waqf Act, 1995. Accordingly, the Board of Waqfs issued show cause notice to the appellant / petitioner herein with his appointed lawyer and filed a show cause reply. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for hearing. After several adjournments by the petitioner, he did not turn up and as such, upon consideration of the enquiry report, the Board of Waqfs came to the conclusion that the petitioner was liable to be removed from the office of the Mutwalli under Section 64(1)(K) of the Waqf Act, 1995. The appellant / petitioner herein was removed from his office and opposite party nos.2 and 3 being the descendants of the waqif and fit persons to be appointed mutwallis where appointed Joint Mutwallis of the Waqf Estate for proper management of the said Waqf Estate. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal against the resolution of the Board of Waqfs. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, this revisional application has been preferred. Now, the point for consideration is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing Mr. Sibupada Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the above facts are not in dispute. A wrong doer cannot take advantage of his own wrong. In the instant case, the same thing happened. After demise of the father of the petitioner, his two sons, namely, the applicant and Toyab Ali Fakir were appointed as Joint Mutwallis as per deed of waqf. Subsequently, Toyab Ali Fakir expired but the petitioner did not inform the Board of Waqfs of the fact and he continued to act as sole mutwalli in respect of the Waqf Estate under the case. Sensing mismanagement and misappropriation of the Waqf Estate, the opposite party nos.2 and 3 filed a complaint before the Board of Waqfs for removal of the petitioner. Accordingly, an auditor of the Board of Waqfs held an enquiry and he submitted a report pointing out the mismanagement and misappropriation of the waqf funds. On the basis of the report of the auditor, the Board of Waqfs stated an enquiry. At first, the petitioner appeared and filed show cause. But at the time of hearing, he began to pray for adjournments again and again and ultimately, he did not turn up. Thereafter, on the basis of the reply to show cause notice by the petitioner and other materials on record, the Board of Waqfs came to a conclusion that the petitioner was liable to be removed from the office of the Mutwalli under Section 64(1)(K) of the Waqf Act, 1995. The petitioner did not participate in the enquiry held against him. He cannot take any advantage of his own wrong. It is not the case that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunities to place his stance before the Board of Waqfs. On the basis of the enquiry report, show cause reply by the petitioner, the Waqf Board passed the resolution recommending removal of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the learned Waqf Tribunal has observed that the resolution passed by the Board of Waqfs does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or incorrectness. Thus, I find that the two authorities in two separate proceedings have come to the same conclusion recommending removal of the petitioner from the post of Mutwalli. Such observations are based on materials available on the enquiry. Therefore, the findings of the Waqf Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse at all. The petitioner got sufficient opportunity to place his stance before the Board of Waqfs but he preferred not to appear for the reasons best known to him at his own risk.
(3.) DURING the argument, Mr. Ghosh has referred to the decision of Maulvi Abdul Rahman Siyai v. Sardar Maqbool Hasan and ors. reported in AIR 2009 Allahabad 62 and submits that while exercising the power of superintendence including the appointment of Mutwalli, the Board of Waqfs is under a duty to follow directions of the waqfs as contained in the waqf-deed. In the instant case, the waqf-deed lays down the procedure for appointment of the Mutwallis. The opposite party nos.2 and 3 are the descendants of the waqif and when mismanagement and misappropriation of the Waqf Estate was detected, the petitioner was removed from the post of Mutwalli under the provisions of Section 64(1)(K) of the Waqf Act, 1995. So, after the enactment of the said 1995 Act, a mutwalli is removable under the circumstances stated in the said Section and both the fora have come to a concurrent finding about the mismanagement and misappropriation of the Waqf property by the petitioner. Therefore, I hold that the decision referred to by Mr. Ghosh will be of no help to his client. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the concurrent findings by the two authorities should not be set aside in exercising the revisional jurisdiction, I am also of the opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity. There is no scope of interference with the impugned order.;