Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M. Javeed Ali, a Muslim and Mutawalli of Masjid-e-Farooquia, Kodihalli, Bangalore, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the notification dated 20.8.2011 issued by the 1st respondent (State of Karnataka) appointing the 4th respondent (R. Abdul Reyaz Khan) as a member of the 3rd respondent (Karnataka State Board of Wakfs). The petitioner also challenged the order of the 2nd respondent (Returning Officer) accepting the nomination of the 4th respondent for election to the Board. The petitioner contended that the appointment was made without consulting the Board and the Committee of Management as required under Section 101 of the Wakf Act, 1995. The respondents argued that the consultation was not mandatory. The court examined Section 101 of the Wakf Act, 1995, which provides that the State Government shall, before appointing a member, consult the Board and the Committee of Management. The court held that the consultation is mandatory and the failure to do so renders the appointment illegal. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned notification and order, allowing the petition.
Headnote
A) Wakf Law - Appointment of Members to Wakf Board - Section 101 of the Wakf Act, 1995 - Mandatory Consultation - The appointment of a member to the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs by the State Government without consulting the Board and the Committee of Management as required under Section 101 of the Wakf Act, 1995 is illegal and liable to be quashed. The court held that the consultation process is mandatory and non-compliance vitiates the appointment. (Paras 1-6) B) Constitutional Law - Writ of Certiorari - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Quashing of Illegal Orders - The High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, can quash a notification appointing a member to a statutory board if the appointment is made in violation of statutory provisions. The court issued a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned notification and order. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of the 4th respondent as a member of the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs by the 1st respondent is valid when the mandatory consultation with the Board and the Committee of Management under Section 101 of the Wakf Act, 1995 was not undertaken.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned notification dated 20.8.2011 (Annexure-A) insofar as it relates to appointing the 4th respondent as a member of the 3rd respondent Board, and the impugned order dated 20.8.2011 (Annexure-M) accepting the nomination of the 4th respondent for election to the membership of the 3rd respondent Board, are quashed.
Law Points
- Statutory consultation mandatory
- Wakf Act 1995 Section 101
- Appointment of members to Wakf Board
- Quashing of notification for non-compliance
- Writ of certiorari
