Shamshul Islam vs The Karnataka State Board of Wakfs

N. Kumar, J.—The Petitioner has challenged in this Writ Petition the show cause notice issued by the Wakf Board calling upon him (sic), should not be superseded.

The grievance of the Petitioner is Rule 58 of the Karnataka Wakf Rules, 1997 specifically provides for issue of notice in Form No. 82. The impugned show cause notice is not in the form prescribed. Secondly, it is contended, as is clear from the prescribed form, the said show cause notice has to be issued by the order of the Board. The impugned show cause Board. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned show cause notice is vitiated and is liable to be set aside.

A perusal of Rule 58 shows that the Wakf Board has the jurisdiction to supersede Wakf and remove the members of the managing committee constituted by them. Before taking any such action, the said rule provides they shall issue notice in Form 82 to a committee against, whom action is contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 67. A copy of the Form 82 is annexed at Annexure-B. A perusal of the same discloses that the show cause notice should contain when the committee is constituted and for what period, then what are the reasons for taking action against the committee, if such an action is taken on the basis of the audit report, it shall be specifically stated so and a month''s time is to be given to show cause and if no reply is replied, then further proceedings have to be taken in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law. It is true in the show cause notice impugned in this Writ Petition, the provision of law is not mentioned, date of constitution of the committee and the period of constitution of the committee are not mentioned. The Petitioner in the Writ Petition has categorically stated on what date the committee is constituted and for what period. By not mentioning the said facts which is not in dispute and which is within the knowledge of the Petitioner, the show cause notice would not get vitiated.

In so far as the contention that the Board has to authorize, that argument emanates from Form 82. A format or a form cannot over-ride a statutory provision. All that Rule 58 prescribes is the Board shall issue notice. Now, admittedly a notice is issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs. Merely in the show cause notice it is not mentioned that it is by the order of the Board, it cannot be presumed that the Board has not authorized him to issue such a notice. On the contrary, when an official in discharge of his official functions issues a show cause notice as contemplated under the law, the presumption is he has been duly authorized. It is for the person who disputes the said fact to place material to rebut such presumption. No such material is produced except assertion. However, the said contention can also be urged in the reply to be filed to the show cause notice, apart from traversing the allegations on merits. Under these circumstances, I do not find any justification to entertain this Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is rejected, reserving liberty to the Petitioner to file a detailed reply to the show cause notice within the period specified.