CWP-9255/2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9255/2009 Abul Saleem & anr. Vs The Chairman, Rajasthan Wakf Board & ors. DATE OF ORDER : 12/05/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI *** Dr. PC Jain, for petitioners. Mr. SP Sharma, for respondents Instant writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 29/06/2009 whereby the Committee has been constituted by the Board of Muslim Wakf under the provisions as provided under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Muslim Wakf Regulations, 1964. Both the petitioners were members and were appointed as President and Secretary of the Committee constituted by the respondent-Board vide order dt. 17/04/2008. However, fresh Committee has been constituted by the respondent-Board after expiry of one year vide order dated 29/06/2009 which has been assailed by filing the instant writ petition. The main thrust of the submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that before superseding the order dated 17/04/2008 by which the petitioners were appointed as President and Secretary, opportunity of hearing ought to have been provided to them and such action of the respondent-Board is violative of the principles of natural justice. CWP-9255/2009 2 Counsel for petitioners further submits that no reason has been assigned by the respondent-Board while passing the order Anx. 2 dt. 29/06/2009 and the justification cannot now be supported by filing reply to the writ petition and being a non-speaking order, it deserves to be set aside. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent-Board in which it has been averred that the Committee was constituted by the respondent-Board under the Regulations 1964 where the term of the Committee under Regulation 25 is one year which has indisputably expired. Counsel for respondents submits that in the order which has been assailed through instant writ petition (Anx.2) is appealable order under Sub-Section 4 of Section 67 of the Wakf Act, 1995. I have heard counsel for the parties and have also perused the material on record. The constitution of the Committee has been provided under Regulation 21 of the Regulations, 1964 and under Sub-Clause 2 of Regulation 21 all such committees are constituted by the respondent-Board and functions, which are to be discharged by the committees, are provided under Regulation 23 and the term of the Committees are regulated in CWP-9255/2009 3 terms of Regulation 25 which reads as under:- “25.Term of office of committees.- Each committee shall be constituted for a term of one year. Provided that the Board may, by resolution made in that behalf, extend the term for a further specified period not exceeding six months.” It clearly provides that the term of the Committees constituted is one year. However, the Board, by resolution may extend the term but not exceeding six months. In the instant case, the order impugned dt.29/06/2009 was passed by the respondents after expiry of one year and not prior thereto which was in conformity with Regulation 25 of the Regulations, 1964 and the extension could not be claimed as a matter of right and respondent-Board was justified and within its competence to constitute a Committee vide order dt. 29/06/2009 as provided under Regulations, 1964 of which reference has been made supra. So far as submission made by counsel for the petitioners that prior notice or opportunity was not afforded, is of without substance for the reason that the term itself was for one year and the respondent-Board was within its competence to constitute fresh CWP-9255/2009 4 Committee under its Regulations. No right of the petitioners has been infringed and in such circumstances there was no occasion for the respondents to provide any hearing before passing of the order impugned. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu/p.4/ 9255-CW-2009-final.doc