Amitava Roy, J.
Oral
1. In assailment is the judgment and order dated 22.03.2011 rendered in WP(C) No.5974 of 2010 rejecting the writ appellant/writ petitioner’s challenge to the enquiry conducted into the allegations levelled against him as well as the order dated 20.10.2010 on the basis thereof withdrawing his appointment as provisional Mutawalli of Badarpur Bazar (Railway) Jame Masjid Wakf Estate (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the estate’).
2. We have heard Mr. B. C. Das, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. P. S. Deka, learned State counsel for respondent No.1.
3. For the order that is proposed to be passed it is considered inessential to issue notice to the other respondents.
4. The factual background, in short, has to be sketched for appropriately appreciating the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties present. The appellant was appointed as Mutawalli of the Estate by the order dated 19.8.1995 of the Secretary, Assam Board of Wakfs, (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’), Dispur, Guwahati, on provisional basis subject to the approval of the Board as per provisions of the Wakf Act, 1954 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). In course of his tenure in the said capacity; certain complaints were lodged against him highlighting several irregularities and also imputing misappropriation of the fund of wakf property. An in-house inquiry was conducted which, however, was not pursued after a particular stage.
5. The President and Secretary of the Badarpur Bazar (Railway) Jame Masjid Committee being aggrieved by the abandonment of the enquiry approached this Court with WP(C) No.1500 of 2008. The writ appellant/writ petitioner who had been impleaded as respondent No.4 therein refuted the allegations levelled and insisted that he had been managing the wakf property to the best of his abilities and that there was no complaint from any quarter to that effect. This Court by judgment and order dated 08.04.2010 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Assam Board of Wakfs, Guwahati and the Chief Executive Officer, Assam Board of Wakfs, Guwahati, to make an enquiry into the allegations levelled against the writ appellant/writ petitioner and take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
6. An enquiry, as ordered by this Court, was thereafter conducted in which, admittedly, the writ appellant/writ petitioner participated. On the conclusion of the enquiry the Chief Executive Officer, Assam Board of Wakfs, submitted his report on 10.06.2010 concluding that he was unsuitable for the post of Mutawalli and to administer the affairs of the Estate in the said capacity. According to the enquiry officer, the allegations of the complaint were well founded in most of the cases. The findings of the enquiry officer were accepted by the Board following which the order of his appointment as provisional Mutawalli was decided to be withdrawn. This decision of the Board was communicated by the order dated20.10.2010 by the Chief Executive Officer, Assam Board of Wakfs, Guwahati with a direction to the writ appellant/writ petitioner to hand over the charge to the Badarpur Bazar (Railway) Jame Masjid Committee which was entrusted to take over the management of the Estate temporarily for a period of one year. The challenge to this decision having been dismissed by the learned Single Judge the present appeal has been preferred for remedial intervention of this Bench.
7. Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, has urged with reference to Section 64 of the Act and Rule 52 of the Wakf Rules, 1998 (Assam), that as the prescribed procedure for conducting the enquiry laid down therein had not been adhered to, the proceedings thereof are non-est in law and thus the impugned judgment and order is liable to be interfered with. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the enquiry officer did not frame clear and specific articles of charge(s) to be enquired into for which the writ appellant/writ petitioner was seriously prejudiced. As by the said omission the proceedings of the enquiry stood vitiated by transgression of law and violation of the principles of natural justice the learned Single Judge ought to have adjudged the same to be invalid.
8. Mr. Deka, learned State counsel, in reply, has argued that the appellant/writ petitioner having participated in the enquiry without any demur the plea of departure from the prescribed procedure for furthering the enquiry and violation of the principles of natural justice at this belated stage ought to be rejected in limine.
9. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, we are inclined to sustain the plea raised on behalf of the respondent State. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order demonstrates that the learned Single Judge has made an exhaustive scrutiny of this aspect of the debate and had rejected the same on valid considerations. Suffice it to mention that the writ appellant/writ petitioner had not during the furtherance of the enquiry taken any plea of violation of the aforementioned provisions of the Act and the Rules invalidating the same. The plea of want of natural justice now raised is not unduly belated but also lacks in persuasion. The writ appellant/writ petitioner having participated in the enquiry and there being no allegation of want of opportunity to that effect, the ground of violation of the prescribed procedure, at this stage, in the factual background of the case does not have any substance. The appeal is, thus, without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.