CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.12624 OF 1996 A K Tripathi, J. In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ------ The Managing Committee, Hazarat Shah Syed Peer Murad Rahmatulla Allaih, High Court Mazar Sharif ----------- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar and others -------------------- Respondents ------- For the petitioner: M/S. Farooque Mauzzam and Khatim Raza. For the Waqf Board: Mr. Sadat Ali Khan. For the State: Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, JC to SC -3. ------- P R E S E N T THE HON`BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI Power and pelf does not discriminate between ordinary mortals and the God Almighty. The dispute in the present writ application is with regard to the Mazar of Hazarat Shah Syed Peer Murad Rahmatulla Allaih also known as High Court Mazar Sharif. All may not have been well with the way the affairs of the Mazars had been handled by the Managing Committee or the Mutwali of the Mazar but then any action taken against the Managing Committee must have the authority of law and within the ambit of the law which in the present case is Waqf Act 1954 or the current 1995 Act. 2. The order issued by the Secretary dated 14.11.1996 contained in annexure-1 as well as the subsequent order dated 29.8.1996 authorizing an assistant to collect the - 2 - monthly rent and offerings of the Mazar came to be challenged in the present writ application. 3. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the two orders are reflection of adhoc decision making at the level of the Waqf Board because it is categorically asserted that requirement of section 32 which is equivalent to section 15 of the old Act was not followed in the matter. Section 32(g) does empower the Board to appoint and remove mutwallis but such decision will require sanction by atleast 2/3 rd members of the board, in favour of such a decision before the action. In the present case whatever be the circumstance or justification in taking decisions contained in annexures 1 and 2 the requirement of law has not been followed. 4. Counsel appearing for the respondent Waqf Board submits that there is power of delegation by the board in favour of Chair-person in terms of section 27 but he Court has serious reservation on this provision being used in the manner in which a Chair-person can exercise powers under the Act. When statute lays down certain procedure to be followed in exercise of power section 27 can not be invoked in each every situation so as to negate or dilute the statutory provision. It can never be anybody’s case that section 27 has an overriding effect over every other provision under the Act. 5. In absence of any satisfactory explanation to the circumstance under which annexures 1 and 2 having been - 3 - passed the Court is constrained to quash the two annexures but liberty is given to the Waqf Board that they may take appropriate decision in the interest of the Waqf but in conformity of law in this regard. 6. The writ application is allowed with the above liberty to the respondents. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) Patna High Court; The 10th December, 2008. N A F R (R K Pathak).