1981 INSC 0073
                                              Mohammad Mustakhan

                                                           Vs

                                 U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf and Others

                                          Civil Appeal No. 697 of 1981

                                        (P.N. Bhagwati, Baharul Islam JJ)

                                                      06.02.1981

                                                        ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave arises out of a proceeding taken by the appellant under Section 63(3)
read with Section 71 of the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act 16 of 1960 challenging an order dated May 7,
1973 passed by the Controller dissolving the Management Committee of the Waqf. There were three
contentions raised on behalf of the appellant before us in support of the challenge against the
validity of the order of dissolution. One was that the Controller had no power to dissolve the
Management Committee because that was a function which could be performed by the Waqf Board
alone and the Controller had no power to make such an order. This contention does not appear to be
sound since we find that under Section 14, sub-section (2) of the Act, the State Government has, in
the circumstances specified in that section, power to appoint a Controller of the Waqf Board and the
Controller so appointed is entitled to perform and discharge the functions and duties of the Waqf
Board. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has produced before us a copy of
a notification dated March 22, 1970 issued by the State Government appointing R. Hussan Chisti, a
Sunni Muslim, as Controller of Waqf Board. Therefore, there can be no doubt that in the present
case the Controller had power to make an order dissolving the Committee of Management. But the
order of dissolution suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as it
does not give any reasons for dissolution of the Committee of Management and the only ground
which has been given in the order of dissolution is that the "existing Committee is defect (sic
defunct)". This ground does not make any sense at all and it is obvious that the Controller has made
the order of dissolution without applying his mind to the relevant considerations which should
weigh with him in making such an order. Moreover there are no reasons given by the Controller for
dissolving the Committee of Management. It is undoubtedly true that a report was made by the
Inspector and on receipt of the report, a show-cause notice was issued to the Committeeof
Management and a representation was filed by the Committee of Management showing cause
against the proposed order of dissolution, but the order of dissolution does not show as to what were
the reasons which weighed with the Controller for dissolving the Committee of Management. We
should have expected the order of dissolution to discuss the facts and circumstances set out in the
report of the Inspector in the light of the cause shown by the Committee of Management and then
set out the reasons as to why the order of dissolution should be made.

3. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the orders passed by the District Court as well as the
High Court and quash the order of dissolution by the Controller and direct that the Controller or the
Board, as the case may be, may, if it thinks fit, decide, after following the principles of natural
justice whether the Committee of Management should be dissolved and if the Controller or the
Board decides to dissolve the Committee, then it shall give proper reasons for doing so in the order
of dissolution. There will be no order as to costs.

</html