Bombay High Court Quashes Cancellation of Waqf Board Member Appointment for Lack of Power Under Waqf Act, 1995. State Government Cannot Cancel Membership Except Through Specific Provisions for Disqualification or Removal Under Sections 16, 19, or 20 of the Act.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 6
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Shaikh Mahemud S/o Shaikh Mahebub, was appointed as a member of the Maharashtra State Waqf Board by the State Government vide notification dated 13.09.2019, under Section 14(9) read with Section 14(1)(c) of the Waqf Act, 1995, for a term of five years. However, on 04.03.2020, the State Government issued a notification cancelling his appointment, purportedly under the same provisions. The petitioner challenged this cancellation before the Bombay High Court, arguing that the Waqf Act does not confer any power on the State to cancel a member's appointment before the expiry of the term, except through specific provisions for disqualification (Section 16) or removal (Sections 19 and 20). The petitioner contended that the impugned notification was arbitrary, without reasons, and in violation of natural justice. The State Government defended the cancellation, claiming that the appointment was made subject to the condition 'until further orders' and that the power to appoint includes the power to cancel. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995, and held that Section 14 deals only with the composition and appointment of the Board, not with the termination of membership. The term of office is governed by Section 15, which provides a fixed term of five years. Removal can only be effected under Section 16 (disqualification), Section 19 (removal by the Board), or Section 20 (removal by the State Government on grounds of misconduct, incapacity, etc., after following due procedure). The court noted that the impugned notification did not invoke any of these provisions and did not assign any reasons or provide any opportunity of hearing. Relying on a previous Division Bench decision in Writ Petition No. 5566 of 2015, the court held that the State Government has no power to cancel a member's appointment under Section 14. The court quashed the impugned notification dated 04.03.2020 and directed that the petitioner be reinstated as a member of the Waqf Board for the remainder of his term.

Headnote

A) Waqf Law - Appointment of Member - Cancellation of Membership - Section 14, 15, 16, 19, 20 of Waqf Act, 1995 - The State Government cancelled the petitioner's appointment as a member of the Waqf Board purportedly under Section 14(9) read with Section 14(1)(c) of the Waqf Act, 1995. The court held that Section 14 does not confer any power to cancel membership; the term of office is governed by Section 15, and removal can only be under Sections 16, 19, or 20. The impugned notification was quashed as without authority of law and violative of natural justice. (Paras 1-14)

B) Waqf Law - Term of Office - Removal of Member - Section 15, 16, 19, 20 of Waqf Act, 1995 - The court held that a member of the Waqf Board is entitled to complete the term of five years unless disqualified under Section 16 or removed under Section 19 or 20. The State cannot cancel the appointment by invoking Section 14, which only deals with composition and appointment. (Paras 7-14)

C) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Cancellation Without Hearing - The impugned notification cancelling the petitioner's membership was issued without any notice or opportunity of hearing, and without assigning any reasons. The court held that such an order is arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. (Paras 5, 14)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the State Government has the power to cancel the appointment of a member of the Waqf Board before the expiry of the term of five years under Section 14 of the Waqf Act, 1995, without following the procedure under Sections 16, 19, or 20 of the Act.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned notification dated 04.03.2020 cancelling the petitioner's appointment as a member of the Waqf Board. The court directed that the petitioner be reinstated as a member of the Waqf Board for the remainder of his term.

Law Points

  • Waqf Act
  • 1995
  • Section 14
  • Section 15
  • Section 16
  • Section 19
  • Section 20
  • cancellation of membership
  • natural justice
  • statutory power
  • term of office
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (BOM) (02) 13

Writ Petition No. 3983 of 2020

2021-02-24

S. V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant D. Kulkarni

V. J. Dixit, Senior Advocate i/by S. V. Dixit, Advocate for the Petitioner; S. B. Yawalkar, Addl. G. P. for sole Respondent

Shaikh Mahemud S/o Shaikh Mahebub

The State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging the cancellation of appointment as a member of the Waqf Board.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of the notification dated 04.03.2020 cancelling the petitioner's membership and reinstatement as a member of the Waqf Board.

Filing Reason

The petitioner's appointment as a member of the Waqf Board was cancelled by the State Government without any authority under the Waqf Act, 1995, and without following due process.

Previous Decisions

The petitioner was appointed as a member of the Waqf Board on 13.09.2019 for a term of five years. The impugned notification dated 04.03.2020 cancelled the appointment.

Issues

Whether the State Government has the power to cancel the appointment of a member of the Waqf Board under Section 14 of the Waqf Act, 1995? Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's membership without following the procedure under Sections 16, 19, or 20 of the Waqf Act, 1995, is valid? Whether the impugned notification is arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner: Section 14 of the Waqf Act does not empower the respondent to cancel the appointment of a member. The term of office is governed by Section 15, and removal can only be under Sections 16, 19, or 20. The impugned notification is without reasons and violates natural justice. Respondent: The appointment was made subject to the condition 'until further orders', and the power to appoint includes the power to cancel. The cancellation was valid under Section 14.

Ratio Decidendi

The State Government does not have the power to cancel the appointment of a member of the Waqf Board under Section 14 of the Waqf Act, 1995. The term of office is fixed under Section 15, and removal can only be effected under Sections 16, 19, or 20 of the Act, after following due procedure. Any cancellation without authority of law and without observing natural justice is arbitrary and illegal.

Judgment Excerpts

Section 14 of the Act of 1995 does not empower the respondent to cancel the appointment of the member of the Waqf Board. None of the provisions of the Waqf Act enables the respondent to cancel membership of the member of the Waqf Board before completion of term of five years except in the circumstances specified under Section 16, 19 and 20 of the Act of 1995. The impugned notification does not assign any grounds for cancellation of the membership. The impugned order is in excess of powers of the respondent.

Procedural History

The petitioner was appointed as a member of the Waqf Board on 13.09.2019. On 04.03.2020, the State Government issued a notification cancelling the appointment. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3983 of 2020 before the Bombay High Court challenging the cancellation. The court reserved judgment on 22.12.2020 and pronounced on 24.02.2021.

Acts & Sections

  • Waqf Act, 1995: 14, 14(1)(c), 14(9), 15, 16, 19, 20
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Cancellation of Waqf Board Member Appointment for Lack of Power Under Waqf Act, 1995. State Government Cannot Cancel Membership Except Through Specific Provisions for Disqualification or Removal Under Sections 16, 19, or 20 ...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Monitors CBI Investigation in Hathras Gang-Rape and Murder Case — Fair Investigation and Witness Protection Ordered. The Court directed the State to provide threefold security to the victim's family and noted that the CBI investigatio...