Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from elections to the managing committee (Mutawallis) of Tembhi Naka Muslim Jamat Masjid, Thane, a Wakf governed by the Maharashtra State Wakf Board. Respondent Nos.1-8 challenged the Wakf Board's order dated 22-05-2009 directing elections, and the subsequent election of the applicants (Respondent Nos.3-11 in the original application) held on 31-05-2009, by filing Application No.29/2009 before the Maharashtra State Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad. The Tribunal initially rejected the application on 05-09-2009. On revision, the High Court remanded the matter on 20-04-2010 for fresh consideration. The Tribunal then allowed the application on 26-07-2010, setting aside the order and elections. The applicants challenged this by filing Civil Revision Application No.499/2010. The High Court on 05-04-2011 set aside the Tribunal's order, observing that the issue of election validity was not before the Tribunal, and remanded the matter with liberty to the respondents to amend the application to challenge the elections and the approval order dated 03-07-2009. After remand, the respondents amended the application. Notices were issued to the applicants, but many were returned unserved. The Tribunal, assuming the applicants were deliberately avoiding service and without directing alternative modes of service, proceeded ex parte. By the impugned order dated 16-07-2011, it quashed the order dated 22-05-2009, the elections, the approval order dated 03-07-2009, set aside the applicants' appointment as Mutawallis, and imposed costs of Rs.1000/- each on the applicants, while directing the Wakf Board to frame a new scheme and hold fresh elections within six months. The applicants filed the present Civil Revision Application No.639/2011 under Section 114 CPC, mainly contending that the order was passed without hearing them, in gross violation of natural justice. The High Court found merit in this contention, holding that the Tribunal erred in proceeding on the assumption that the applicants were avoiding service without any report to that effect, and should have directed alternative modes of service. Consequently, the order was vitiated. The Court also noted that the tenure of the applicants as Mutawallis had already expired. Accordingly, clauses (2), (3), (4), and (6) of the operative part of the impugned order were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration on the legality of the elections after proper notice. Pending such remand, the Court appointed an administrator on the Wakf.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Natural Justice - Right to Hearing - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 114 - The Wakf Tribunal passed an order setting aside elections and imposing costs without ensuring proper service of notice on the affected respondents; Held, the order is vitiated as it violates principles of natural justice; matter remanded for fresh consideration after due service (Paras 8-9). B) Wakf Law - Management and Administration - Expiry of Tenure of Mutawallis - The tenure of the managing committee had expired long before the hearing; Held, since they cannot continue in office, an administrator is to be appointed to manage the Wakf pending framing of a new scheme and fresh elections (Paras 8, 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order dated 16/7/2011 passed by the Wakf Tribunal without proper service of notice on the applicants and without hearing them is vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice?
Final Decision
The High Court set aside clauses (2), (3), (4), and (6) of the operative part of the impugned order (i.e., quashing of elections, setting aside appointment, costs) and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on the legality of elections after proper service. The Court also appointed an administrator for the Wakf until a new scheme is framed and fresh elections are held, noting that the applicants' tenure as Mutawallis had already expired.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Principles of natural justice require proper service of notice and hearing before passing adverse orders
- Revisionary jurisdiction under Section 114 CPC exercised to correct jurisdictional errors.
