IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2347 of 2011 Shri Akram Khan and others ….Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …Respondents Present : Mr. G.K. Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate present for the intervener. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. G.K. Verma, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for the intervener. 2. A committee was formed by orders of the Chairman of the Waqf Board dated 2.8.2011. Subsequently by order dated 10.8.2011, the said order dated 2.8.2011 was stayed. The order dated 10.8.2011 was challenged before this Court by means of a writ petition being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2116 of 2011. A learned Single Judge of this Court initially stayed the order dated 10.8.2011 vide interim order dated 20.9.2011, and subsequently the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 18.10.2011 with the following directions : “7. Consequently, I direct the Uttarakhand Waqf Board to take final decision in the matter within a period of ten days from today. The Waqf Board will also provide adequate opportunity to all the concerned parties in order to place their case before the Waqf Board. Interim order dated 30.9.2011 will lapse on the date, final order is passed by the Waqf Board. It is made absolutely clear that the Waqf Board will not be influenced, in any manner, by the interim order passed by this Court on 30.09.2011.” 3. Subsequently the Board in its meeting dated 24.10.2011 has passed an order by which the earlier order dated 2.8.2011 has been recalled and one person Sri Hafizur Rehman has been appointed as an Administrator of the Waqf Board. It is this order, which the Committee has challenged before this Court on grounds that the orders of the learned Single Judge had not been complied with in its letter and spirit, as no notice or an opportunity of hearing was given to the members of the committee before passing the impugned order dated 24.10.2011, as has been directed by the learned Single Judge. 4. Mr. Tanveer Alam Khan, Advocate has also been heard on behalf of Sufi Hayat Khan/intervener, though he has not been formally made a party, who was earlier a “Mutawalli” and was replaced by the committee i.e. the petitioner before this Court. From the order impugned, it is clear that the petitioners have not been heard by the Board. Mr. Tanveer Alam Khan, Advocate, on the other hand, states that the very appointment of the Committee was void ab initio, inasmuch as admittedly they have been appointed by the Chairman without any delegation of power by the Board. Hence, the Chariman had no jurisdiction on the said date to appoint the Committee and it is for this reason that earlier order dated 2.8.2011 has been recalled and this is what has come in the minutes of meeting dated 24.10.2011. 5. Be that as it may, it is clear that for whatever reasons, the Chairman has recalled its order, the fact of the matter is that the Committee has not been heard before passing the said order, as were directed by this Court. Therefore, the order dated 24.10.2011 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) is set aside, only as far as it relates to proposal no. 5 relating to Waqf Property No. 164. The petitioners as well as the intervener Sufi Hayat Khan shall be present before the Waqf Board on 2.1.2012. The Board shall pass appropriate orders in true letter and spirit of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.10.2011 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2116 of 2011. However, for abundant precaution, it is made clear that till the matter is disposed of by the Waqf Board, the Committee shall not take any administrative or financial decision. The petitioners shall also cooperate with the Board for disposal of this matter, as directed by this Court. It is made clear that the Board shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, but definitely within a period of one month from today. 6. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is disposed of. 7. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 21.12.2011 Avneet