Case Note & Summary
The petitioners instituted the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, seeking to quash the order dated 1 August 2022 passed by the Karnataka State Board of Auquaf, which constituted a new District Waqf Advisory Committee for Shivamogga District during the existence of an earlier committee of which the petitioners were members. The petitioners, Mohammed Shafiulla and Khalimulla, had been nominated as members of the District Waqf Advisory Committee, Shivamogga, by an order dated 13 January 2021 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Board, for a term of three years, expiring on 12 January 2024. This order was stated to be in exercise of powers under Section 18(1) of the Wakf Act, 1995, and the Karnataka Waqf Regulation, 2010, but explicitly made subject to ratification by the Board. The petitioners contended that once such a committee was constituted, the Board could not constitute another committee before the expiry of its term, and therefore the order of 1 August 2022 was illegal and contrary to Section 18(1) of the Act. The respondents, the Karnataka State Board of Auquaf and the newly constituted District Waqf Advisory Committee, argued that the order of 13 January 2021 was a nullity because the power to establish committees under Section 18 vests solely in the Board, and the Board never ratified the CEO’s action. It was submitted that the very constitution of the committee in which the petitioners were members was without authority of law and could not be the basis of any right. In reply, the petitioners claimed that the Board had ratified the nomination. The Court examined the two orders and the relevant statutory provisions. It noted that the order of 13 January 2021 was passed by the CEO and expressly required ratification, while the order of 1 August 2022 was passed by the CEO but by order of the Board, with no such condition. The Court observed that Section 18(1) empowers the Board to establish committees for the supervision of auqaf, and Section 18(2) requires the Board to determine the constitution, functions, duties and term of such committees. It held that an order passed by the CEO without ratification by the Board is not a valid constitution of a committee and creates no legal right in the nominees. The Court found no evidence of ratification and therefore concluded that the earlier committee was never validly constituted and the petitioners had no right to continue. The Court also addressed the petitioners’ argument under Section 97 of the Act, which permits the State Government to issue directions to the Board for the performance of its functions. It held that the constitution of committees is not a function that the Government can direct under Section 97, as it is the exclusive prerogative of the Board under Section 18; such directions cannot validate an otherwise invalid committee. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the order dated 1 August 2022 constituting the new committee.
Headnote
A) Waqf Law - Constitution of District Waqf Advisory Committees - Section 18, Wakf Act, 1995 - An order constituting an Advisory Committee must be by the Board; if issued by the Chief Executive Officer subject to ratification by the Board, and such ratification is never granted, the order is a nullity and creates no legal right to continue in office - Held that the subsequent committee constituted by the Board on 01-08-2022 was valid and the earlier committee ineffective (Paras 9-10). B) Waqf Law - Government Directions - Section 97, Wakf Act, 1995 - Directions under Section 97 given by the State Government to the Board for performance of its functions do not extend to interference with the constitution of committees under Section 18; such directions cannot validate an otherwise invalid committee - Held that government directions cannot grant authority to override the specific statutory scheme of Section 18 (Paras 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the constitution of a new District Waqf Advisory Committee on 01-08-2022 was valid when an earlier committee existed whose term had not expired and whether the earlier committee had been validly constituted.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed; the order dated 01-08-2022 constituting the new District Waqf Advisory Committee was upheld.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- The Board alone can constitute District Waqf Advisory Committees under Section 18 of the Wakf Act
- 1995
- an order by the CEO without Board ratification is a nullity and creates no legal rights
- government directions under Section 97 cannot interfere with the Board's exclusive power under Section 18.
