- (1.) This appeal is preferred against an order of dismissal dated March 14, 2011 of the writ application bearing No. W.P. 1358 of 2010. The writ Petitioners/Appellants filed the above application challenging an order of supersession of Delanipur Mosque and Madarasa Committee situated at Delanipur, Port Blair, South Andaman dated November 11, 2010 passed by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Wakf Board.
(2.) The Appellants preferred this appeal challenging the impugned order on the following grounds: Firstly, the learned Single Judge came to an erroneous conclusion that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice in passing an order of supersession of the Committee under reference. According to the Appellants, a show cause notice dated March 31, 2010 was issued by the Respondent Board. The Appellants submitted a reply dated April 29, 2010. On receipt of the above reply, a notice dated July 14, 2010 was issued by the Respondent Board to resolve the matter amicably. It is further submitted that from the minutes of the meeting dated July 31, 2010, it appears that the Board decided to give an opportunity to the Appellants to submit written reply with reference to the show cause notice. Instead of giving that opportunity, the order of supersession was passed. Secondly, the show cause notice dated March 31, 2010 was issued by the Respondent Board without jurisdiction. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellants that the learned Single Judge did not take into consideration that the terms of the erstwhile Respondent Board expired on February 03, 2010. It was reconstituted on June 02, 2010. Therefore, there was no legally constituted Wakf Board at the time of initiating the proceedings by issuing notice dated March 31, 2010. Thirdly, the members of the Respondent Board were not appointed in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Wakf Act, 1995. According to the Appellants, the members of the Respondent Board did not possess the requisite qualifications prescribed in different Sub-sections of Section 14 of the Wakf Act, 1995. The documents relating to fulfillment of requisite qualifications were not before the Respondent No. 1 at the time of issuing the notification. Fourthly, since there was no validly constituted Board at the time of initiating the proceedings by issuing show cause notice under reference, the same was issued by the Respondent No. 3. It is further submitted on behalf of the Appellants that the appointment of Respondent No. 3 was set aside by an order dated January 05, 2011 passed in W.P. No. 10017(W) of 2010 K.A. Abdul Salam v. Wakf Board and Ors. which was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in MAT No. 012 of 2011 In Re: The Lieutenant Governor v. K.A. Abdul Salam and Ors. According to the Appellants, since the appointment of Respondent No. 3 was not sustainable in law, the action taken by him was liable to be set aside. The last ground for challenging the impugned order is this, the Appellant No. 1 was not appointed by the Wakf. Nor the Wakf was registered under the provisions of Section 36 of the Wakf Act, 1995., therefore, no step could be taken against that Committee invoking the provisions of Sub-section(1) of Section 67 of the Wakf Act, 1995. According to the Appellants, the learned Single Judge did not take into consideration the above aspects of the matter.
(3.) Reliance is placed on the decisions of T.N. Wakf Board v. Hathija Ammal, 2001 8 SCC 528, Dalpath Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. V.S. Maharajan, 1990 1 SCC 305 and Sahara India (Firm) Lucknow v. Commissioner of Income Tax Central I, 2008 14 SCC 151 in support of the submission made on behalf of the Appellants.;