RANAWAT,c. J - (1.) THE petitioners are Mohammad Ameen and Mohammad Ikhtiyar. THEy are both muslims. THE grievance of the petitioners is that the Wakf Board appointed one Hafiz as Khateeb to lead prayers at Idgah on 5fh May, 1963. THE petitioners as Muslims claim that the Wakf Board has no jurisdiction to make any such appointment and it is open to the petitioners to have anyone as their Khateeb to lead the prayers at Idgah. THE petitioners claim that their fundamental right under Art. 26 of the Constitution to manage their own affairs in matters of religion has been interfered with by the action of the Wakf Board. THEy pray that the opposite parties be restrained from appointing any person as Khateeb and to allow one Ayub to lead the prayers on the occasion of the Id.
(2.) THE Wakf Board appointed a committee under sec. 16 of the Muslim Wakfs Act and the said committee passed a resolution regarding appointment of Hafiz as Khateeb to lead the prayers at Idgah on the Id day. THE Wakf Board after giving notice to Ayub endorsed the resolution of the committee and appointed temporarily Hafiz as the Khateeb. THE Board also requested the Collector of Jodhpur to maintain peace at the time of the Id prayers and to allow Hafiz to lead the congregation at the prayers. THE petitioners have challenged the jurisdiction of the Wakf Board and the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to sec. 15 of the Wakf Act which gives the functions of the Board. We have carefully read sec. 15 of the Muslim Wakf Act and we think it is the duty of the Board to give directions for the administration of Wakfs and to appoint and remove Mutwalli in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In making arrangements for the administration of the Wakf, it is also the duty of the Board to make appointments of several office bearers for purposes of administration. Under Muslim Law, Imam of a mosque or Idgah is to be appointed by a Mutwalli. The duties of a Khateeb, as mentioned by the petitioners are akin to those of an Imam and it may safely be held that a Khateeb like an Imam can be appointed under the provisions of the Muslim law by a Mutwalli. The Board has the power to appoint Mutwalli and also to make arrangements for the administration of the Wakf. As such, the Board has also powers to appoint Imam or Khateeb even though such persons may have to discharge purely religious functions at the prayer. It is only when the officer who is appointed is incompetent that the congregation under the Muslim law may exercise its right to elect an Imam or a Khateeb to lead the prayers. Thus we do not think it is wrong for the Wakf Board to make arrangements for performance of the duties of a Khateeb temporarily, till a suitable person is so appointed accordingly to the provisions of the law. The petitioners as Muslims have no doubt a right to offer prayers at Idgah but that right is not being taken away in any manner in the present circumstances. They cannot claim to appoint a Khateeb of their own choice unless the person appointed by the Board is found to be totally incompetent. We cannot, therefore, agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that their fundamental or legal right is being infringed on account of the order of the Wakf Board in the matter of appointing temporarily a person to discharge the functions of a Khateeb at Idgah. The petitioners thus have no case for issue of a writ or direction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The petition is dismissed summarily. .;