Removal of mutwalli for antecedent misconduct upheld where statute allowed urgent action and delegation under waqf law.

A statutory amendment empowering the Majlis to remove a mutwalli for wilful disobedience could validly be applied to antecedent misconduct, because the power operated prospectively even though it addressed prior orders and directions; there was no vested right to retain office after established mismanagement. The statutory scheme also allowed the Sadr to act where urgent action was needed and a Majlis could not be convened in time, including temporary appointment after persistent disobedience. The constitutional challenge to sections 27 and 32 of the Bihar Waqfs Act, 1947 failed, as the provisions were upheld as part of a public-interest framework for waqf supervision and administration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amendment empowering the Majlis to remove a mutwalli for wilful disobedience could be applied to pre-amendment orders and directions; (ii) whether the Sadr could exercise the Majlis' powers to order removal and make a temporary appointment; (iii) whether sections 27 and 32 of the Bihar Waqfs Act, 1947 were unconstitutional.

Issue (i): Whether the amendment empowering the Majlis to remove a mutwalli for wilful disobedience could be applied to pre-amendment orders and directions.

Analysis: The amended provision gave the Majlis power to remove a mutwalli where there had been wilful disobedience of the Majlis' orders and directions under the Act. The fact that the disobedience related to orders issued before the amendment did not make the action retrospective in the impermissible sense. The power was conferred prospectively, but it could validly be exercised in respect of antecedent conduct because the amendment was intended to enable the Majlis to deal with past misconduct already in issue. There was no vested right to continue in office after mismanagement and misconduct had been established.

Conclusion: The objection of retrospectivity failed and the removal power was held applicable to the appellant's prior conduct.

Issue (ii): Whether the Sadr could exercise the Majlis' powers to order removal and make a temporary appointment.

Analysis: The statutory scheme permitted the Sadr to act where immediate action was necessary and a meeting of the Majlis could not be arranged in time, and it also allowed delegation of powers to the Sadr in special circumstances. On the facts found, the removal was required urgently after persistent disobedience and failure to deposit the amount due to the waqf. The temporary appointment was therefore supported by the statutory scheme and the concurrent findings below.

Conclusion: The Sadr's exercise of power was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether sections 27 and 32 of the Bihar Waqfs Act, 1947 were unconstitutional.

Analysis: The challenge to the statutory provisions was not accepted. The provisions were part of a public-interest framework for supervision and administration of waqfs, and the Court found no constitutional infirmity in the powers conferred on the Majlis or the Sadr.

Conclusion: The constitutional challenge to sections 27 and 32 failed.

Final Conclusion: The order removing the mutwalli and the connected statutory action were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory power to remove a mutwalli may be exercised on the basis of antecedent misconduct without being impermissibly retrospective, and the Sadr may act for the Majlis where the Act authorises emergency action or delegation.

---