Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) PETITIONER , Secretary of the Wakf Committee of Gram Dantala, Tehsil Siwana, District Barmer, has preferred this writ petition praying under -mentioned reliefs: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and the impugned order dated 04.03.2014 (Annex. 2) may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside. Any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper may also be given." The apposite facts, for the purpose of this writ petition, are that Chief Executive Officer of Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf (for short, 'Board') vide its order dated 16th July 2013 constituted a Wakf Committee for managing the affairs of the properties of village Dantala, Tehsil Siwana, District Barmer, and the petitioner was appointed as Secretary of the Committee. As per the order the term of the Committee was specified as one year. In the order it was specifically mentioned that the Committee shall strictly adhered to the provisions of the Wakf Act 1995 (for short, 'Act of 1995') and the Rules made thereunder. It is also clarified in the order that Committee shall be obliged to handover charge to the Board, Committee constituted by the Board, or any incumbent appointed by the Board. In pursuance of the order dated 16th July 2013, the Committee assumed the charge and started functioning. On 4th of March 2014, the Chief Executive Officer, Wakf Board, passed an order superseding the Wakf Committee, which was appointed earlier by order dated 16th July 2013. Categorizing the said order as illegal, the petitioner has pleaded that the same has been issued in contravention of statutory provisions of law. For substantiating the grievances, the petitioner has also taken shelter of sub -sec. (2) of Section 67 of the Act of 1995. It is specifically pleaded in the writ petition that although petitioner has assailed the said order before the Rajasthan Wakf Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') by way of preferring an appeal but in want of Presiding Officer of the Tribunal the same is not functioning. The petitioner has specifically pleaded in the writ petition that since last more than a year no Presiding Officer is available in the Tribunal. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to assail the impugned order.
(2.) AT the threshold, notices were issued to the respondent. On 28.5.2014, counsel for the Wakf Board appeared and sought time to file reply. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a request to grant interim protection and therefore while deferring the matter for 7th July 2014, the impugned order dated 4th of March 2014 was kept in abeyance. The said order was further extended on 7th of July 2014 and it remained operative till 18th July 2014. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Siddiqui has submitted that the Committee which was constituted by the order dated 16th July 2013 had its tenure for a year but abruptly the Committee has been superseded by the impugned order and some other Committee has been appointed without assigning any reason, therefore, the said order is not sustainable. Mr. Siddiqui has further submitted that the remedy available to the petitioner before the learned Tribunal under the Wakf Act has become illusory because the Tribunal is not functioning since last more than a year, therefore, the afflictions of the petitioner are liable to be examined in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court as no other remedy is available to the petitioner. Challenging the impugned order, Mr. Siddiqui would contend that proviso to sub -section (2) of Section 67 of the Act of 1995 clearly envisage that supersession of management of the Committee can be ordered by the Board after issuing notice and assigning reasons for the proposed action and in want of such notice and assigning reason, supersession of the earlier Committee is per -se illegal and contrary to the statutory provisions. Mr. Siddiqui further submits that even otherwise such a decision is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and as such the order impugned cannot be sustained.
(3.) PER contra, learned counsel for respondent Wakf Board has submitted that the order, whereby the Committee was appointed, clearly envisage that Board has reserved its right to supercede or substitute the Wakf Committee before expiry of the tenure and as such the contention of the learned counsel is not tenable. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that in the new committee petitioner is retained as Joint Secretary and therefore at his behest this writ petition is not tenable as he is not an aggrieved person.;