Karnataka High Court
Sri Asif Ali Shaik Hussain vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2020
Bench: Chief Justice, S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO.12859 OF 2020 (GM-WAKF) PIL
BETWEEN:
1. SRI ASIF ALI SHAIK HUSSAIN
S/O LATE SHAIKH HUSSAIN
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
AMEENPUR STREET
GADAQ ROAD, KOPPAL - 583 231
2. SRI K.ANWER BASHA
S/O KHAZI ABDUL KAREEM
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
ISLAMIC ARABIC MADARASA
MINORITY EDUCATION SOCIETY
NAGASAMUDRA VILLAGE
MOLKALMURU TALUK
CHITRADURGA - 577 535
3. SRI SYED NAZIR HUSSAIN
S/O SYED HAFEEZ
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
No.164, BANDIHATTI ROAD
EX-SERVICEMEN COLONY
COWL BAZAR, BALLARI - 583 122
4. SRI TANVEER SAIT
S/O LATE AZEEZ SAIT
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
No.532, 3RD MAIN, M.G.ROAD CROSS
UDAYAGIRI, MYSURU - 580 019
5. SMT. KANEEZ FATIMA
W/O LATE QUMARUL ISLAM
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
-2-
No.1-864/5, M.S.K. MILL ROAD
KALBURGI - 583 231
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI JAIKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.MOHAMMED TAHIR A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF MINORITY WELFARE
HAJ & WAQFS, VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
3. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DIVISION
BANGALORE & ELECTORAL REGISTRATION
OFFICER, ELECTION TO THE KARNATAKA
STATE BOARD OF AUQAF
2ND FLOOR BMTC BUILDING
K.H.ROAD, SHANTINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 027
4. KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQAF
No.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
VASANTH NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 051
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
... RESPONDENTS
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING
IMPUGNED CORRIGENDUM DATED 07.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT No.2 AT ANNEXURE-R AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
ORDER
Paragraph 7 of this writ petition reads thus:
"The Petitioner No.1 is elected member of the Respondent No.4 Board from Electoral College of Muslim Member of State Bar Council. Petitioner No.2 is elected member of the Respondent No.4 Board from Electoral College of Mutawalli. Petitioner No.3 is elected member of the Respondent No.4 Board from Electoral College of Muslim Member of Parliament from the State. Petitioner No.4 & 5 are elected members of the Respondent No.4 Board from Electoral College of Muslim Members of Legislative Assembly. The Petitioners apart from being elected as members of the Respondent No.4 Board are having Public interest as a Muslim members of the State to protect the Wakf administration being misused by the State Government. Further, the Petitioners are all representatives of Muslim community in the state and they have bounded duty to protect misuse of Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013 and Karnataka Wakf Rules 2017."
Hence, all the petitioners are the members of the fourth respondent - Board.
2. The challenge in this petition is to the orders/notifications dated 7th September 2020, 15th September 2020 and 4th November 2020. The notification dated 7th September 2020 is issued for changing the name of the electoral collage for electing the members of the fourth respondent. The notification dated 15th September 2020 again relates to the election of the fourth respondent. The notification dated 4th November 2020 is -4- again in respect of the said election. As far as the notification dated 7th September 2020 is concerned, it purports to change "Electoral Collage of members of Bar Council from Karnataka State - ONE" as "Electoral Collage of members of Bar Council from Karnataka State - Two". As stated in paragraph 7, the first petitioner is an elected member of the fourth respondent from the electoral collage of Muslim members of the State Bar Council.
3. Considering the nature of reliefs claimed, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the petitioners have no personal interest in the subject matter of controversy. They cannot be said to be pro bono litigants. We, therefore, decline to entertain this writ petition as a public interest litigation. We, however, make it clear that we have not gone into the legality and validity of the disputed orders/notifications.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE AHB