P.A.G.Hassain Moulana vs The Union Of India on 20 October, 2004

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

P.A.G.Hassain Moulana vs The Union Of India on 20 October, 2004

Equivalent citations: AIR 2005 MADRAS 111

Bench: P.D.Dinakaran

       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20/10/2004

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN

W.P.No.3062 of 1997


P.A.G.Hassain Moulana                          ....  Petitioner

-Vs-

1.  The Union of India
    rep. by the Secretary,
    Government of India,
    Ministry of Welfare,
    New Delhi - 110 001.

2.  The Government of Tamilnadu
    rep. by the Secretary of
    Commercial Taxes and Religious
        Endowments Department,
    Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

3.  The Secretary,
    Tamilnadu Wakf Board,
    No.3, Santhome High Road,
    Chennai - 600 004.                                  ....  Respondents

        Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of  The  Constitution  of  India
praying for the issuance of writ of declaration declaring that the Wakf Act 43
of  1995  is  unconstitutional as it is ultra-vires of the Constitution so far
the Application of its Section 14(1) (b) (iv) and 14(1)(c) and 14(1)(d) of the
said Act 43 of 1995.

For Petitioner :  Mr.  J.K.Abdul for
                Mr.S.B.Fazluddin

For Respondents :  Mr.  M.T.Arunan, ACGSC - R1
                Mr.  P.S.Jayakumar, G.A.-R 2
                Mr.M.Munir Sheriff - R3



:O R D E R

The petitioner challenges Section 14(1)(b)(iv), 14(1)(c) and 14(1)(d) of the Wakf Act as unconstitutional. These provisions reads as follows:

Section 14(1)(b)(iv): mutawallis of the wakfs having an annual income of rupees one lakh and above;

Section 14(1)(c) : one and not more than two members to be nominated by the State Government representing eminent Muslim organisations; and Section 14(1)(d): one and not more than two members to be nominated by the State Government, each from recognised scholars in Islamic Theology.

2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Section 14(1)(b)(iv) of the Wakf Act is unconstitutional because a mere annual income of rupees one lakh and above cannot be a reasonable qualification to consider the mutawalli, who could be a member of the Board for a State. According to him, the qualification such as education in degree and post graduation alone be a consideration.

3. I am not able to appreciate the said contention. As per Section 3(r) of the Wakf Act, 'Wakf' means the permanent dedication by a person professing Islam, of any movable or immovable property for any purpose recognised by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and includes-

i) a wakf by user bur such wakf shall not cease to be a wakf by reason only of the user having ceased irrespective of the period of such cesser;

ii) grants, including mashrut-ul-khidmat for any purpose recognised by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable; and

iii) a wakf-alal-aulad to the extent to which the property is dedicated for any purpose recognised by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and 'wakf' means any person making such dedication.

4. It is therefore, clear that the object of the very registration itself is with reference to the value of movable or immovable property dedicated for pious, religious and charitable purposes, which is nothing to do with educational qualification. In that view of the matter, prescribing a qualification based on annual income of rupees one lakh and above cannot be an arbitrary and irrational consideration while selecting mutawalli, who could be a member of the Board.

5. Secondly, with regard to Section 14(1)(c) and (d) of the Wakf Act, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing is defined that who could be considered as a representative of eminent Muslim Organisation. Under Section 14(1)(c) and (d) of the Wakf Act, it is clear that the power to select a representative from eminent Muslim Organisation was given to the State Government. Therefore, it is for the subjective satisfaction of the State Government to consider the representative from the eminent Muslim Organisation after P.D.DINAKARAN,J taking into relevant consideration that prevails in a particular State. Therefore, again I do not find any unreasonableness in Section 14 (1) (c) and

(d) of the Wakf Act.

6. Hence, I do not find any substance in the contention raised by the petitioner in this regard. The contentions made on behalf of the petitioner is nothing but perverse in nature and finding no merit in this writ petition, the same is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

Index:Yes Internet:Yes sl To

1. The Union of India rep. by the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Welfare, New Delhi - 110 001.

2. The Government of Tamilnadu rep. by the Secretary of Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

3. The Secretary, Tamilnadu Wakf Board, No.3, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 004.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court