Madras High Court
K.Fazlur Rahman vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 August, 2020
Bench: M.M.Sundresh, R.Hemalatha
W.P. Nos.726, 8377 & 9557 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.08.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
W.P.Nos.726, 8377 & 9557 of 2020
& W.M.P.Nos.879, 10065, 11675, 878,
10066, 11673 & 11676 of 2020
K.Fazlur Rahman .. Petitioner in WP.No.726 of 2020
S.Syed Ali Akbar .. Petitioner in WP.Nos.8377
& 9557 of 2020
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Secretary to Government,
Backward Class, Most Backward Class and Minority
Welfare (T1) Department, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Chief Executive Officer,
Tamil Nadu Waqf Board,
No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street,
Vallal Seethakathi Nagar,
Chennai – 600 001.
3.Dr.Haja K.Majeed
(R3 impleaded as per order dated 03.03.2020
made in WMP.No.5376 of 2020 in WP.No.726 of 2020)
.. Respondents in WP.No.726 of 2020
Page 1 of 25
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P. Nos.726, 8377 & 9557 of 2020
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government,
Backward Class, Most Backward Class and Minorities
Welfare (T1) Department, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
..1st Respondent in WP.No.8377 of 2020
1.The Election Authority and
Principal Secretary to the Government,
Backward Class, Most Backward Classes and
Minorities Welfare (T1) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
..1st Respondent in WP.No.9557 of 2020
2.The Secretary to Government,
Backward Class, Most Backward Classes and
Minorities Welfare (T1) Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Special Officer,
Tamil Nadu Waqf Board,
No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street,
Vallal Seethakathi Nagar,
Chennai – 600 001.
4.The Chief Executive Officer,
Tamil Nadu Waqf Board,
No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street,
Vallal Seethakathi Nagar,
Chennai – 600 001.
..2nd to 4th Respondents in WP.Nos.8377 & 9557 of 2020
Prayer in WP.No.726 of 2020: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified
Page 2 of 25
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P. Nos.726, 8377 & 9557 of 2020
mandamus calling for the documents pertaining to the impugned order
published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette G.O.(Ms.)No.58
(Backward Class, Most Backward Class and Minorities Welfare (T1)
Department) dated 18th September 2019 and quash the same as illegal
and erroneous and may consequently direct the respondents to act
benevolently for the performance of Tamil Nadu Waqf Board and the
Waqf of the State.
Prayer in WP.No.8377 of 2020: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for
the records of the impugned G.O.Ms.No.58 dated 18.09.2019 issued
by the 2nd respondent and the impugned letter No.1105/T1/2020-01
dated 12.05.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequential
impugned urgent memo dated 12.05.2020 issued by the 4th
respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the
respondents to transfer the control of the powers and functions of the
Tamil Nadu Waqf Board and its properties back to the Tamil Nadu Waqf
Board as envisaged by the Waqf Act, 1995.
Prayer in WP.No.9557 of 2020: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for
the records of the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent in Press
Release No.412 dated 19.06.2020 and consequential Press Release
No.499 dated 14.07.2020 and quash the same and consequently direct
the respondents to transfer the control of the powers and functions of
the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board and its Properties back to the Tamil Nadu
Waqf Board as envisaged by the Waqf Act, 1995.
Page 3 of 25
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P. Nos.726, 8377 & 9557 of 2020
For Petitioner .. Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar
in W.P.No.726 of 2020
Mr.K.Ilayaperumal
in W.P.Nos.8377 and 9557
of 2020
For Respondents .. Mr.Vijay Narayan,
Advocate General for R1
in W.P.No.726 of 2020
for R1 & R2 in W.P.Nos.8377
and 9557 of 2020
Mr.V.Lakshmi Narayanan
for R2 in W.P.No.726 of 2020
for R3 & R4 in
W.P.Nos.8377 and 9557 of 2020
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2.In view of the commonality of the issues involved, all the writ petitions have been taken up together and disposed of by a common order.
3.The issue pertains to the order of supersession of the Waqf Board during its currency on the premise that it does not conform to the mandate of Section 14(4) of the Waqf Act, 1995 (hereinafter Page 4 of 25 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. Nos.726, 8377 & 9557 of 2020 referred to as 'the Act') which states that the number of elected members of the Board shall, at all times, be more than the nominated members of the Board except as provided under sub-section (3). Pursuant to the impugned order of supersession, prior to the expiry of the term of office of those elected and nominated members of the Board, election was notified and process is going on. Now, challenges have been made both by the person aggrieved and by the public interest litigation to the order of supersession as extended subsequently and the election Notification.
4.Before proceeding further, let us narrate the facts governing the case.
4.1.The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board was reconstituted under G.O.(2D) No.23 Backward Classes, Most Backward Glasses and Minorities Welfare (T1 ) Department dated 14.09.2017 and G.O.(2D) No.24 Backward Classes, Most Backward Glasses and Minorities Welfare (T1 ) Department dated 10.10.2017 in accordance with sub section 1 of Section 14 of the Act with 11 members for total term of five years. The total members permissible is 12. Page 5 of 25 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. Nos.726, 8377 & 9557 of 2020 4.2.Some members ceased to hold the post for various reasons, which we are not concerned with. Of the members, two Senior Advocates were nominated by invoking the provision of Section 14 (1)(d)(iii) of the Act. To the Board, there are four electoral colleges. At the time of formation of the Board, the mandate of Section 14(4) was duly complied with. Accordingly, they were more elected members than the nominated ones. Since the nominated members became more subsequently as against the elected members in contravention of Section 14(4), the impugned supersession order was passed preceded by a show cause notice. This was done by the invocation of the powers conferred under Section 99(1) of the Act. Of all the members viz., 10, who are in existence at the relevant point of time, only four sent their replies. One member by name by Mr.K.A.M.Muhammed Abubacker, Member of Legislative Assembly filed a writ petition and lost. The other two members being elected members amongst electoral colleges consist of mutawallis are before us by way of separate writ petitions and by impleadment. The third one by name Mrs. A.S. Fathima Muzaffer, being a nominated one, though made her objections for the proposed supersession, did not chose to contest it thereafter. Page 6 of 25 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. Nos.726, 8377 & 9557 of 2020 4.3.Initially, a writ petition was filed challenging the show cause notice, which was subsequently withdrawn. Writ petitions have been filed in W.P.(MD) Nso.20085 and 20470 of 2019. One of the said writ petitions has been filed by Mr.K.A.M. Muhammed Abubacker being the member of the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board as stated in W.P.(MD) No.20085 of 2019. These two writ petitions have been dismissed on merit. Accordingly, the order of supersession was upheld.
4.4.This order of supersession was extended by another period of six months. One more writ petition has been filed in W.P.(MD) No.7661 of 2020 by an Advocate, which was also dismissed by the learned single Judge on 24.07.2020.
4.5.W.P.Nos.8377 and 9557 of 2020 are filed by one of the members of the Board, being aggrieved by the order of supersession and the consequential proceedings, inclusive of election Notification. The other writ petition viz., W.P.No.726 of 2020 has been filed as a public interest litigation.
4.6.This Court, at the time of entertaining W.P.No.726 of 2020, passed an order on 18.03.2020 to the effect that any action to be Page 7 of 25 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. Nos.726, 8377 & 9557 of 2020 taken during the interregnum would be subject to the result of the writ petition. Now, factually the process is over for the three electoral colleges viz., election from the Member of Parliament Constituency, Member of Legislative Assembly Constituency and two Senior muslim lawyers from the Bar Council Constituency. Thus, the ongoing process is only with respect to the Mutawalli Constituency. With the abovesaid facts, let us see the provisions governing.
5.Section 13 coming under Chapter IV of the Act deals with Incorporation. Sub section 3 of Section 13 gives the status to the Board as a body corporate having “perpetual succession”.
6.Section 14 deals with the composition of Board. This composition is of both nomination and election. Though certain discretion has been given to the Government, when it comes to the nomination of two senior lawyers from the Mutawalli Constituency, endeavour should be made to elect them from among those functioning as members of the State Bar Council, if not available, then ex-members of the State Bar Council before proceeding with the nomination. Section 14 (3) of the Act provides for non-obstante clause which is obviously subject to the proviso to Section 14(2). Sub section Page 8 of 25 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. Nos.726, 8377 & 9557 of 2020 4 of Section 14 mandates that at no point of time, the number of elected members shall be lesser than the nominated members, keeping in view the democratic way of functioning which is expected of. It is apposite to refer the entire provision for better appreciation:
14. Composition of Board.—(1) The Board for a State and 3 [the National Capital Territory of Delhi] shall consist of—
(a) a Chairperson;
(b) one and not more than two members, as the State Government may think fit, to be elected from each of the electoral colleges consisting of—
(i) Muslim Members of Parliament from the State or, as the case may be, [the National Capital Territory of Delhi];
(ii) Muslim Members of the State Legislature; [(iii) Muslim members of the Bar Council of the concerned State or Union territory:
Provided that in case there is no Muslim member of the Bar Council of a State or a Union territory, the State Government or the Union territory administration, as the case may be, may nominate any senior Muslim advocate from that State or the Union territory, and]
(iv) mutawallis of the [auqafs] having an annual income of rupees one lakh and above.Page 9 of 25
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. Nos.726, 8377 & 9557 of 2020 [Explanation I.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the members from categories mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to (iv), shall be elected from the electoral college constituted for each category.
Explanation II.—For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that in case a Muslim member ceases to be a Member of Parliament from the State or National Capital Territory of Delhi as referred to in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) or ceases to be a Member of the State Legislative Assembly as required under sub-clause (ii) of clause (b), such member shall be deemed to have vacated the office of the member of the Board for the State or National Capital Territory of Delhi, as the case may be, from the date from which such member ceased to be a Member of Parliament from the State National Capital Territory of Delhi, or a Member of the State Legislative Assembly, as the case may be;] [(c) one person from amongst Muslims, who has professional experience in town planning or business management, social work, finance or revenue, agriculture and development activities, to be nominated by the State Government;
(d) one person each from amongst Muslims, to be nominated by the State Government from recognised scholars in Shia and Sunni Islamic Theology;
Page 10 of 25 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. Nos.726, 8377 & 9557 of 2020
(e) one person from amongst Muslims, to be nominated by the State Government from amongst the officers of the State Government not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the State Government;] [(1A) No Minister of the Central Government or, as the case may be, a State Government, shall be elected or nominated as a member of the Board:
Provided that in case of a Union territory, the Board shall consist of not less than five and not more than seven members to be appointed by the Central Government from categories specified under sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of clause
(b) or clauses (c) to (e) in sub-section (1):
Provided further that at least two Members appointed on the Board shall be women:
Provided also that in every case where the system of mutawalli exists, there shall be one mutawalli as the member of the Board.
(2) Election of the members specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be held in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of a single transferable vote, in such manner as may be prescribed:
Provided that where the number of Muslim Members of Parliament, the State Legislature or the State Bar Council, as the case may be, is only one, such Muslim Member shall be declared to have been elected on the Board:Page 11 of 25
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. Nos.726, 8377 & 9557 of 2020 Provided further that where there are no Muslim Members in any of the categories mentioned in sub-clauses
(i) to (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) the ex-Muslim Members of Parliament, the State Legislature or ex-
member of the State Bar Council, as the case may be, shall constitute the electoral college. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where the State Government is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to constitute an electoral college for any of the categories mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1), the State Government may nominate such persons as the members of the Board as it deems fit.
(4) The number of elected members of the Board shall, at all times, be more than the nominated members of the Board except as provided under sub-section (3).
7.Section 15 reiterates the term of office of a member of the Board being five years from the date of Notification. Section 16 speaks on disqualification for being appointed or for continuing as a member of the Board. The procedure for removal of a member is provided under Section 20. Under Section 21, a seat which becomes vacant, either by removal, resignation or death or otherwise of a member, new one shall be appointed in his place. The provision contained in Section Page 12 of 25 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. Nos.726, 8377 & 9557 of 2020 22 makes the position clear that the vacancies would not invalidate the proceedings of the Board or any defect in the constitution.
8.Section 99 provides for the Government the power to supersede. Under this provision, the State Government is expected to form an opinion that the Board is unable to perform or has persistently made default in its performance or has wilful and without sufficient cause failed to comply with any direction issued by the Central Government or its functioning is injurious to the interest of the State, it can invoke the power vested in it after affording an opportunity of being heard. It is apposite to refer to the relevant part contained in Section 99:
99.Power to supersede Board. - (1) If the State Government is of opinion that the Board is unable to perform or has persistently made default in the performance of, the duty imposed on it by or under this Act or has exceeded or abused its powers, or has wilfully and without sufficient cause failed to comply with any direction issued by the Central Government under Section 96 or the State Government under Section 97, or if the State Government is satisfied on consideration of any report submitted after annual inspection, that the Board's continuance is likely to be injurious to the interests of the [auqafs] in the State, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, supersede the Board for a period not exceeding six months:
Provided that before issuing a notification under this sub-section, the State Government shall give a reasonable time to Board to show cause why it should not be Page 13 of 25 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. Nos.726, 8377 & 9557 of 2020 superseded and shall consider the explanations and objections, if any, of the Board:
[Provided further that the power of the State Government under this Section shall not be exercised unless there is a prima facie evidence of financial irregularity, misconduct or violation of the provisions of this Act.]
9.On a reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the State has to form an opinion. Such an opinion has to be formed based upon the material available before it. Such a material will have to be sufficient enough for proceeding under Section 99. The words 'unable to perform' have to be seen in the context of the other grounds mentioned under Section 99 such as persistent default, abuse of power and wilful failure to comply with the direction etc., That is the reason why the second proviso of Section 99 clearly prohibits the State from exercising the power unless a prima facie evidence of financial irregularity, misconduct or violation of the provisions of the Act is found. Law is quite settled on the Rule of interpretation that the proviso has to be read in consonance with the main provision. Thus, on a combined reading of the main provision along with proviso, we have no difficulty in holding that Section 99 is the power to be exercised by the State Government on materials placed and upon coming to a subjective satisfaction. The words "violation of provision" is something Page 14 of 25 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. Nos.726, 8377 & 9557 of 2020 which can at best be attributed to the Board on understanding of Section 99 such as acting contrary to law wilfully and abusement of powers.
10.Having understood the provisions, now let us see the impugned order. The impugned order has been passed solely on the premise that the constitution as it existed at the relevant point of time consisted of more nominated members than elected members. This is the reason stated in the show cause notice as reflected in the final order.
Submissions of the petitioners:
11.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the question of delay, laches and acquiescence would not arise for consideration. The very supersession itself is without jurisdiction or authority of law. Challenge has been made at the earliest point of time to the supersession. Even assuming that the writ petition has been filed few months thereafter, which is inclusive of expiry of the period mentioned therein, a vested right cannot be taken away. Obviously, these two members have been elected. The official respondents could have relied upon the other provisions of the Act so as to either suspend or remove the nominated members, while involving thereafter Page 15 of 25 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. Nos.726, 8377 & 9557 of 2020 in a process of election, instead of removing the elected members who have been elected so by the democratic process. It is not as if there was any irregularity. Therefore, the very exercise of power itself is per se illegal and without authority of law. There is no need for impleading of the other persons since the order dated 18.03.2020 itself clearly states that any further action is subject to the final order to be passed. The question of delay and laches will have to be seen contextually. Section 14(4) itself provides for a way out which is to take action against the nominated members. By no stretch of imagination, the nominated members can be equated to that of elected members. The orders passed by the learned single Judges would not bar the Court from passing the order on merit. The petitioners were neither parties nor the said orders would be binding on this Court. Therefore, the writ petitions will have to be allowed.
12.The order impugned is passed by placing reliance on the order of the Division Bench in W.P.No.16997 of 2012 etc batch dated 25.03.2020. the impugned order was passed in purported compliance of the order in the writ petition referred above. Therefore, we would like to quote the relevant paragraph for better appreciation:-
“As per Section 14(4) the number of elected Page 16 of 25 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. Nos.726, 8377 & 9557 of 2020 members of the Board shall, at all times, be more than the nominated members of the Board, except as provided in sub-section (3). Since the elected members of the Board are less than the nominated members of the Board, till the election is completed and Board is reconstituted, the powers and functions of the Waqf Board cannot be exercised by the remaining nine members. Any such functioning by the remaining nine members of the Waqf Board will be in violation of the statutory provision of Section14(4). Therefore, we direct that till the election is completed and new Waqf Board is reconstituted with the elected two members of the Members of Parliament and two members of State Legislature, the Chief Executive Officer shall exercise all the powers and functions of the Board.”
13.The State Government,namely, the first respondent has totally misconstrued the order passed by the Division Bench. The issue before the Division Bench was on the non-compliance of Section 14(4). We have already dealt with the scope and ambit of Section 14(4) in extenso. Therefore, election was directed to be conducted for the compliance of Section 14(4). Thus, such a election is expected to be conducted for the post held by the nominated members who are otherwise be elected to bring the constitution of the Board in compliance with Section 14(4). That is the reason why the Division Bench was pleased to hold that the Board has to be re-constituted with the elected two members of the Parliament and the two members of the State Legislative Assembly. Had the State Government adopted the Page 17 of 25 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. Nos.726, 8377 & 9557 of 2020 said exercise in conducting election for the post held by the nominated members, the anamoly would have got rectified. Thus, the action of the State Government is in total contravention of law. After all, an elected member whose right is vested having a fixed tenure cannot be disturbed so easily except with the sanction of law. Otherwise, the State Government, as and when Section 14(4) is not complied with, will have to supersed the Board and re-constitute it by way of a fresh election to all the posts. Obviously, this would lead to absurdity.
14.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.726 of 2020 submitted that certainly there involves public interest and therefore the writ petition is maintainable requiring an order to be passed on merit.
Submission of the respondents:
15.Learned Advocate General and Mr.Lakshmi Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the writ petitions are not maintainable in fact and law. The election process has already set in. There is unexplained delay on the part of the petitioners. They are fence sitters. The right being statutory and Page 18 of 25 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. Nos.726, 8377 & 9557 of 2020 having waived it, it is not open to them to file a writ petition subsequently. There is sufficient power available under Section 99(1). It is nobody's case that at the time of passing the impugned order of supersession, the nominated members were less as against the elected members. Therefore, the writ petitions will have to be dismissed especially when there is no possibility of giving a partial relief as the show cause notice itself was complied only by four persons among 10. One of the petitioners is also being a mutawalli, apart from conscious of the election process, did take part, though in a limited way. Discussion:
16.On the scope and ambit of Section 14 vis-a-vis Section 19(1), we have discussed already. We are dealing with a case where the elected members were sought to be penalised for no fault of theirs with a situation created on facts brought forth by circumstances by exercising the powers under Section 99(1), superseding the entire Board. The object of Section 14(4) is to uphold the democratic principle. The action of the State, we are constrained to state, is completely contrary to the object and rationale mentioned in Section 14(4). At best, the State could have done something to comply with Section 14(4) by dealing with the nominated members by invoking the Page 19 of 25 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. Nos.726, 8377 & 9557 of 2020 provisions. But a nominated member can never be considered on a par with the elected member insofar as the democratic functioning of the Board is concerned. That is exactly the reason why Section 14(4) has been brought forth under the statute. After all, nomination is done only by the Government whereas the election is by a process. Unfortunately, both set of members were treated alike by exercising the power under Section 99(1) of the Act.
17.Section 99(1) of the act can never be invoked to comply the mandate of Section 14(4). This can only be done when there is a deliberate violation on the part of the Board as a whole apart from acting contrary to law affecting the interest of the waqf and the State. Therefore, the very invocation of Section 99 by the State to get over the anomaly in not having more elected members in compliance with Section 14(4) cannot be sustained. The various situations mentioned in Section 99 are to be read on the principle of ejusdem generis. This principle has to be applied when prejudice is shown affecting the interest of the third parties. We do not find such a situation in the case on hand. Thus, this is a provision which certainly has got a civil consequence. There must be a prima facie material even for the Page 20 of 25 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. Nos.726, 8377 & 9557 of 2020 issuance of a show cause notice. The very initiation itself has got no basis in this case. This provision cannot be invoked for non-compliance of any provision of the law caused by external factors. As stated, at the cost of repetition, such a non-compliance will have to be attributed to the functioning and conduct of the Waqf Board and not by a natural phenomenon. Thus, we are of the view that the very order of supersession itself cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
18. As we hold that the basis itself has got no jurisdiction, any consequent action also will not stand. The first writ petition was filed earlier. The petitioner in W.P.No.8377 of 2020 has filed two writ petitions. As stated already, in the first writ petition filed in W.P.No.726 of 2020, an order was passed that all subsequent actions would be subject to the result of the writ petition. The question of delay, laches and acquiescence can never be one of law but of fact. In fact, it is one of practice and prudence and not otherwise. Therefore, it has to be applied to the facts and circumstances of each case. This principle has to be applied when prejudice is shown affecting the interest of the third parties. We do not find such a situation in the case on hand. We do not find that the petitioners at any point of time having given up their statutory right.
Page 21 of 25 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. Nos.726, 8377 & 9557 of 2020
19.However, out of ten member of the Board since superseded under the impugned order only four have given reply. Of the four persons, one has filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.20085 of 2019 which was dismissed. Therefore, we are of the view that he is not entitled for any relief. Similarly, the other person by name A.S. Fathima Muzaffer though gave her reply to the show cause notice did not chose to challenge the impugned order. Therefore, even she is not entitled for any relief. Further more, she is only a nominated member.
20.We do find some force in the submission made by the learned Advocate General and Mr.Lakshmi Narayanan that there is no public interest involved in the writ petition as the right is statutory in nature. Therefore, though they are not entitled more so being men of eminence and knowledge, these two persons cannot be denied. However, two of the members of the Board have come before us. Perhaps, the other persons are not interested any longer. It is not as if they are not aware of the impugned proceedings followed by consequential process of election. Therefore, we are not inclined to grant any relief to any other persons except the two petitioners. Page 22 of 25 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. Nos.726, 8377 & 9557 of 2020
21.Much has been said on the election process having been started. It is no doubt true that once the election process is started, the Court of law is not expected to interfere. However, we are not on the question of election. Rather the question involved is on the legality of the supersession made. If the impugned supersession has not been made, there would not have been any election. Therefore, the election is only consequential. Thus looking from any perspective, we are unable to deny the relief to atleast two persons viz., the petitioner in W.P.No.8377 of 2020 who also filed W.P.No.9557 of 2020 and the other one by name Dr.Haja K.Majeed, who filed the impleading petition.
22.For these reasons, we accordingly hold that the order passed by us including the observation made on the impugned order would be applicable to these two persons alone. We have also been told that the process is completed for all other constituencies except mutawalli constituency.
23.Accordingly, the impugned order of supersession in G.O.(Ms.)No.58 (Backward Class, Most Backward Class and Minorities Welfare (T1) Department) dated 18th September 2019 and the consequential orders stand set aside insofar as the election of two Page 23 of 25 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. Nos.726, 8377 & 9557 of 2020 persons viz.,.Syed Ali Akbar and Dr.Haja K.Majeed alone are concerned. The writ petitions in W.P.Nos.8377 and 9557 of 2020 stand allowed accordingly.
24.In view of the order passed in W.P.Nos.8377 and 9557 of 2020, no further orders are required in W.P.No.726 of 2020 and the same stands closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(M.M.S., J.) (R.H., J.)
17.08.2020
Index: Yes/No
mmi/ssm
Note to Registry : Upload on 21.08.2020.
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Backward Class, Most Backward Class and Minority Welfare (T1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street, Vallal Seethakathi Nagar, Chennai – 600 001.
3.The Special Officer, Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street, Vallal Seethakathi Nagar, Chennai – 600 001.
Page 24 of 25 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. Nos.726, 8377 & 9557 of 2020 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and R.HEMALATHA,J.
mmi/ssm W.P.No.726, 8377 & 9557 of 2020 17.08.2020 Page 25 of 25 http://www.judis.nic.in