- (1.) THE petitioners are members of a Wakf Committee constituted by the Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf under an order dated 17.1.2004 to manage, maintain and look after the wakf property Dargah Deewan Shah Saheb, Kapasan. THE Wakf Board vide order dated 6.11.2007 constituted a new committee for the purpose aforesaid, accordingly, an instruction was given to the President and Secretary of the Committee constituted under the order dated 17.1.2004 to hand over charge to the office bearers of newly constituted committee. By way of filing an appeal the petitioners assailed the order aforesaid before the Rajasthan Wakf Tribunal, but the same came to be rejected on 8.1.2008 being not maintainable. Learned Tribunal held that the committee was superseded on expiry of its term, thus, appeal was not maintainable.
(2.) BY instant petition for writ challenge is given to the order passed by the Tribunal and also to the order dated 6.11.2007. However, the petitioners on 8.1.2009 confined their challenge only for the order dated 6.11.2007, as such the order passed by the Rajasthan Wakf Tribunal has acquired finality. Section 67(1) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1995") provides that whenever the supervision or management of a wakf is vested in any committee appointed by the wakf, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, such committee shall continue to function until it is superseded by the Board or until the expiry of its term as may be specified by the wakf, whichever is earlier. As per sub-section(2) of Section 67 aforesaid, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act and in the deed of the wakf, the Board may, if it is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that a committee, referred to in sub-section(1) is not functioning properly and satisfactorily, or that the wakf is being mismanaged and that in the interest of its proper management, it is necessary so to do, by any order, supersede such committee, and, on such supersession, any direction of the wakf, in so far as it relates to the constitution of the committee, shall cease to have any force. Before making supersession of any committee, a notice setting forth therein the reasons for the proposed action and calling upon the committee to show cause is necessary. An order superseding a wakf committee as per sub-section(2) of Section 67 of the Act of 1995 is appealable before the Wakf Tribunal. As already stated earlier, an appeal was preferred by the petitioners and that came to be rejected on the count that supersession of the committee was not as per sub-section(2) of Section 67 of the Act of 1995, thus, the appeal was not maintainable. The petitioners have already withdrawn challenge to the order passed by the Tribunal, thus, now it is not open for them to challenge the order dated 6.11.2007 with assertion that the same is not in accordance with sub-section(2) of Section 67 of the Act of 1995. An effort to challenge the order impugned on this count is made by counsel for the petitioners, but I am not entertaining the same. The next argument of counsel for the petitioners is that the power under sub-section(1) of Section 67 of the Act of 1995 could have been exercised only on expiry of the term specified by the Wakf Board while constituting wakf committee, but under the order dated 17.1.2004 no term is prescribed. The argument aforesaid is having no merit. The order dated 17.1.2004 in most unambiguous terms prescribes that the Board shall be having all authority to supersede, cancel, reduction and addition with the committee. True it is, that the right aforesaid was sought to be diluted under a resolution dated 29.5.2004, but i.e. of no consequence in view of subsequent resolution of the Board of Muslim Wakf taken on 19.10.2007 (resolution No.58/2007, Anx.R/3/1). The Board of Muslim Wakf, thus, while passing the order dated 6.11.2007 exercised its authority to appoint a new committee by superseding the earlier one. This Court just for its satisfaction also called original record of the Wakf Board to examine foundation of the order impugned. From examination of the record, it reveals that supersession of the committee constituted under the order dated 17.1.2004 and constitution of a new committee under the order dated 6.11.2007 is simplicitor and is not an out come of any stigmatic action. As such, I do not find any wrong with the order impugned. The petition for writ, therefore, is having no merit, hence dismissed. ;