Madhya Pradesh High Court
Liyakat Ali @ Lala vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 October, 2011
W.P. No. 11362.11
Writ Petition No. 11362 of 2011
19-10-2011
Shri S. A. Wakil, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned counsel for the
respondents No. 1 and 4.
Shri S. K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2, 3 and 5.
With consent matter is heard finally. Order dated 09-06-2011 passed by the M. P. Wakf Board is being challenged in this petition.
By said order District Wakf Committee, Anuppur, has been constituted for a period of one year.
The petitioner earlier headed the District Wakf Committee, Anuppur, for three years with effect from 09-06-2008. After expiry of said term fresh proceedings were initiated for constitution of a District Wakf Committee.
Contention of he petitioner is that in consonance to the provisions under section 18 of the Wakf Act, 1995, renewal of committee under his Presidentship was recommended by the Collector and the Minister on 30-05-2011, but the Committee under Presidentship of respondent No. 5 has been constituted by impugned order.
Main ground for challenge is that the Committee has not been constituted as per provisions of sections 18 & 27 of the Act of 1995. Petitioner places reliance on the W.P. No. 11362.11 extracts of Note sheet dated 4-3-2011, 2-6-2011 and 6-6-2011 of the Wakf Bard to bring home the submissions that the Collector Anuppur has recommended in favour of the petitioner and that the appointment of respondent No. 5 is on the basis of the recommendation by the Minister Incharge of the District.
Respondents, more particularly respondent No. 5 besides raising preliminary objection as to maintainability of the petition in view of availability of the alternative remedy under section 89 of the Wakf Act, 1995, have to submit that the appointment of Committee being strictly in accordance with the provisions contained under section 18 is proper and legal. It is urged that the petition being devoid of substance deserves to be dismissed.
To appreciate the rival contentions and to know whether the constitution of District Wakf Committee under Presidentship of respondent No. 5 is in accordance with law, provisions of section 18 of the Act of 1995 has to be looked into. It stipulates :
"18. Committees of the Board.- (1) The Board may, whenever it considers necessary, establish either generally or for a particular purpose or for any specified area or areas committees for the supervision of Wakfs.
(2) The Constitution, functions and duties and the term of office of such committees shall be determined from time to time by the Board.
Provided that it shall not be necessary for the members of such committees to be members of the Board."
W.P. No. 11362.11 A Division Bench of this Court in Mohd. Ehsanul Haque and another v. Madhya Pradesh Wakf Board and others : W. P. No. 3744/2007 decided on 01-05-2008 observed thus in respect of the scope of section 18 of the Wakf Act, 1995.
"The language in Section 18 of the Wakf Act 1995 would show that there was no scope for the Wakf Board constituting a committee on the basis of the recommendations of the respondents No. 3 and 4. The Wakf Board was a statutory authority and as such statutory authority cannot have abdicated the statutory functions assigned to it under the Wakf Act, 1995, by constituting Muttawalli Committee solely of members who are recommended by the respondents No. 3 and 4."
In the case at hand two note sheets are brought on record dated 4-3-2011 and 2-6-2011 whereby the name of the committee under Presidentship of the petitioner has been recommended in the following terms : -
"¼vkod Ø- 619 fnukad 4&3&11½ ,oa 292@2&6&11 ftyk oDQ desVh vuwiiqj dh desVh xBu gsrq vkosnu e; 'kiFki=ks ds izkIr gqvk gS] ftlesa ftyk dysDVj vuqiiqj us fuEukuqlkj desVh xBu dh vuq'kalkk dh gS%& iwoZ esa desVh 9&6&08 dks rhu o"kZ ds fy;s dk;kZy; oDQ cksMZ ls LohÑr dh xbZ Fkh ftldk dk;Zdky fnukad 8&6&11 dks lekIr gks jgk gSA desVh fuEukuqlkj gS%& ¼1½ Jh fy;kdr vyh vk0 Lo0 cjdr vyh & lnj ¼2½ Jh lr:n~nhu vk0 Lo0 tekymn~nhu & uk- lnj ¼3½ Jh eks- ;kdwc [kku vk0 vCnqy dqn~nql & lsØsVjh ¼4½ Jh vuoj eqlwjh vk0 v- gehn eqlwjh & uk lsØs- ¼5½ Jh vlye eqalwjh vk0 vYyk c['k & [ktkaph ¼6½ Jh vtgj ealwjh vk0 'ks[k vCnqYyk & lnL;
¼7½ Jh eks- rdh vk0 eks- leh & lnL;
¼8½ Jh elykmn~nhu vk0 gkfre valkjh & lnL;
¼9½ Jh eks- tkosn vk0 v- ethr & lnL;
W.P. No. 11362.11
¼10½ Jh bcjkj vgen vk0 fulkj vgen & lnL; ¼11½ Jh v- xQwj vk0 eks- jQhd & lnL;
¼12½ Jh vtgj vCckl vk0 vkyenkj & lnL; ¼13½ Jh eks- eksfcu vk0 guhQ & lnL;
¼14½ Jh ,tkt ,gen vk0 v- glhc & lnL;
vr% mijksDrkuqlkj desVh xBu ds mfpr vkns'kkFkZ uLrh izLrqr gSA "
Another note sheet dated 6-6-2011 recommends the committee under the Presidentship of respondent No. 5 in the following terms :-
"iqu% ¼vkod Ø- 1497 fnukad 6&6&11] vkod Ø- 296 fnukad 6&6&11½ ftyk vuwiiqj dh eqfLye voke }kjk dk;kZy; dks QSDl ds ek/; ls ftyk oDQ desVh vuwiiqj ds v/;{k Jh fu;kdr vyh ds fo:) f'kdk;r dh xbZ gS] ftlesa xqtkfj'k dh xbZ gS fd desVh v/;{k vius gksgns dk xyr Qk;rk yEcs le; ls mBkrk pyk vk jgk gS ,oa fy;kdr vyh ds f[kykQ dksVZ esa ekeyk Hkh ntZ gSA ,sls vkneh dksbl vksgns esa jgus dk dksbZ gd ugha gSA ftyk oDQ desVh vuwiiqj Jh uohu desVh xBu gsrq vkosnu e; 'kiFki=ksa ds dk;kZy; dks izkIr gqbZ gSA ftldh vuq'kalkk ekuuh; Jh t;kflag ejkoh] izHkkjh ea=h] ftyk vuwiiqj ,oa dysDVj ftyk vuwiiqj }kjk iwoZ desVh dh vuq'kalk dks fujLr djrs gq,] uohu desVh ds fy;s dh xbZ gS desVh fuEukuqlkj gS%& ¼1½ eks- Qghe s/o gkth v- gyhe & v/;{k ¼2½ eks- bfy;kl ealwjh s/o eks ;wlqQ & lfpo ¼3½ eks- vkehj s/o uw:y gd & dks"kk/;{k ¼4½ eks- chu ealwjh s/o gkth eks- guhQ & lg&lfpo ¼5½ gkth ihj eks- s/o uwj eksgEen & lnL; ¼6½ eqUuk [kka mQZ eks- ulhe s/o eks- lyhe & lnL;
¼7½ vCnqy jTtkd s/o v- x¶Qkj & lnL;
¼8½ vCnqy jQhd s/o v- xQwj& lnL;
¼9½ vCnqy j'khn [kku s/o v- gehn & lnL;
W.P. No. 11362.11
¼10½ tkfcj [kku s/o tqEeu [kku & lnL; ¼11½ bLgkd jkBkSM+ s/o gkth cQkrh & lnL;
vr% ekuuh; v/;{k egks- ds ekSf[kd funsZ'kkuqlkj mDr uohu desVh LohÑfr ds mfpr vkns'kkFkZ uLrh izLrqr gSA** It is clear from both the note sheets that the Wakf Board which is a Statutory Authority discharging statutory function under the Wakf Act, 1995, has been burdened with the recommendations of Collector and the Minister Incharge, District Anuppur, cannot therefore be said to have discharged the statutory functions.
In the result the impugned order dated 09-06-2011 is hereby quashed. The Wakf Board is directed to constitute a fresh committee strictly in accordance with the provisions of section 18 of the Act of 1995.
The petition is allowed to the extent above. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV)
sc JUDGE