Officials Holding Additional Charge Of Waqf Board Posts Can Order Supersession Of Management Committee, Appoint Executive Officer: MP High Court

Justice Pranay Verma observed-

The contention of the petitioner that a person appointed on additional charge cannot perform such function is not acceptable in view of specific provision conferring such powers i.e. Section 99(2)(b) of the Act. The reliance placed by the petitioner on fundamental Rule 49 is misplaced since Rule 49 is as regards an officer appointed to perform the current duties of a post whereas in the present case the Administrator and Chief Executive Officer have been appointed with additional charge and not only to perform the current duties.

The case of the Petitioner was that it was a duly registered waqf and that its managing committee was appointed for a period of three years to look after the management and affairs of Waqf Mazaar Hazrat Nahar Shah Wali Sahab Wake Mauja Khajrana, District Indore. The Chief Executive Officer of the M.P. Waqf Board ("the Board") had issued a show cause notice, stating that the Petitioner's Committee had committed a number of financial irregularities.

The Petitioner submitted its reply to the show cause notice. However, the same was not found to be satisfactory by the authority. Consequently, in exercise of its power U/S 67(2) of the Waqf Act, the CEO of the Board passed the impugned order, whereby the Petitioner's committee was superseded by the Board. On the same day, another order was passed by the Administrator of the Board, whereby, exercising his powers U/S 38 of the Waqf Act, he appointed the Tehsildar, Indore as the Executive Officer of the Committee.

Assailing the impugned orders, the Petitioner submitted that the orders were in violation of Fundamental Rule 49 of the State Government. It was pointed out that the Deputy Collector of District, Bhopal was holding the post of the CEO of the Board in Additional charge. It was further submitted that the Additional Collector was also holding the post of the Administrator of the Board in Additional Charge. The Petitioner argued that a person on additional charge cannot perform the duties directly deriving from the Waqf Act.

The Petitioner asserted that the statutory functions are directly derived from Sections 67 and 38 of the Waqf Act which are functions and statutory powers of the Board constituted U/S 18 of the Act and that when the Board is not available, the functions and powers cannot be exercised by a person on additional charge. Thus, it was submitted by the Petitioner that the impugned orders were non est and void. The Petitioner further argued that an officer not holding the post on substantive basis could not exercise these statutory powers. The Petitioner relied on the decision of the Full Bench of the Court in Girija Shankar Sukla v. Sub Divisional Officer, Harda & Ors. and in Dr. Gurudatta Tiwari v. Madhya Pradesh Waqf Board.

Per contra, the Respondents submitted that the Management Committee is constituted U/S 18 of the Waqf Act and as per Section 67, the same can be superseded and as per Section 27, delegation can be done. It was argued that since the Act itself provides for mechanism of delegation of power of the Board and as such power has been delegated, no fault can be found in the impugned orders. It was being argued that the Petitioner had challenged the orders only on technical grounds and not on merits, which itself showed that the allegations levelled against it were well founded.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court observed that a perusal of the impugned orders left no room for doubt that the officers concerned were not appointed on officiating basis nor with current charge of the posts. The Court further noted that they were appointed with the additional charge hence they were certainly entitled to exercise the powers under Clause (b) of Section 99 (2) of the Waqf Act-

The Administrator and Chief Executive Officer as appointed are not on current charge of the duties. They have been appointed under specific provisions of the Waqf Act hence have full competence and authority to exercise the powers under the provisions of the Act. They are empowered to exercise powers substantively in addition to their original charge.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court held that the Petitioner had failed demonstrate that the impugned orders were illegal or without jurisdiction in any manner. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Case Title: INDORE WAKF MAZAAR HAZRAT NAHAR SHAH WALI SAHAB WAKE MAUJA KHAJRANA, DISTRICT INDORE versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 155

Click Here To Read/Download Order