Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 646 (MP)

Abdul Mateen v. M. P. Waqf Board

2018-07-24

HEMANT GUPTA, RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. The grievance of the appellant/writ petitioner in the present appeal is twofold: firstly, in respect of his removal as Member of the District Waqf Committee, Sehore on 6.12.2017; and second is the challenge to the constitution of the District Waqf Committee for a period of two years vide order dated 6.12.2017. 2. We find that a show-cause notice was served upon Shamim Ahmed, President of District Waqf Committee, Sehore on 20.9.2017 on account of allegations of misconduct as the President of the said Committee. It is thereafter an order of removal of District Waqf Committee has been passed superceding the District Waqf Committee functioning under the Chairmanship of Shri Shamim Ahmed. 3. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of Section 67(6) of the Waqf Act, 1995 (for short the "Act"), an individual office bearer can be removed after serving notice whereas sub-section (2) of Section 67 deal with super session of the Committee. For super session of a Committee, a notice is required to be served on the Committee, but no such notice was served upon the Committee. The notice was served only upon the President of the Committee; therefore, the action has been taken under Section 67(6) of the Act. Thus, the super session of the entire District Waqf Committee is not sustainable. 4. We find merit in the argument raised, as without serving notice on the Committee, the entire District Waqf Committee could not have been superceded. But even after returning such finding, we find no substantial relief can be granted to the appellant/writ petitioner, as the term of District Waqf Committee is for a period of five years. The Committee was constituted vide order dated 29.5.2013 for a period of five years. The period of five years has come to an end on 28.5.2018.Therefore, the District Waqf Committee constituted in which the appellant was a Member, has come to an end with the efflux of time. 5. Section 18 of the Act empowers the Board to constitute a Committee, general or for a particular purpose or for any specified area or area committees for the supervision of auqaf. The constitution, functions and duties and the terms of office of such committees is required to be determined from time-to-time by the Board. 6. 5. Section 18 of the Act empowers the Board to constitute a Committee, general or for a particular purpose or for any specified area or area committees for the supervision of auqaf. The constitution, functions and duties and the terms of office of such committees is required to be determined from time-to-time by the Board. 6. In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act, the Board has framed Regulations called District Waqf Committee Regulation Madhya Pradesh (for short the "Regulations") - Annexure P/5 attached with the writ petition. Regulation 4 prescribes the procedure for constitution of the Committee. It contemplates that the Committee shall be of such number of members as the Board may deem appropriate but generally the members of the Committee shall not exceed 15 members. However, in appropriate circumstances the Board may constitute a Committee of more than 15 members. Regulation 4(5) delineates seven categories out of which one member is expected to be taken in the Committee. The maximum duration of the Committee is for three years as per Regulation 5. 7. The appellant disputes the constitution of such Committee for a period of two years on the ground that the Committee can be constituted only for a period of six months in terms Regulation 14 of the said Regulations and that there is a First Information Report lodged against the President of District Waqf Committee so constituted, therefore, he could not be designated as President. 8. Regulation 6(4) of the Regulations referred to by the appellant disqualifies a person to be a member of the Committee if he has been convicted or who is guilty of moral turpitude. Still further, Regulation 14 is for appointment of an administrator for a period of six months if the Committee is to be superceded. 9. We do not find that the newly constituted Committee is in violation of the Regulations framed. The disqualification clause in the Regulations is conviction in the criminal case. Therefore, mere lodging of a First Information Report will not amount to disqualification of a candidate. 10. Still further, Regulation 14 deals with the appointment of an administrator if the Committee is to be superceded. In the present case, the term of the Committee has come to an end with the efflux of time; therefore, Regulation 14 has no applicability to the facts of the case. 10. Still further, Regulation 14 deals with the appointment of an administrator if the Committee is to be superceded. In the present case, the term of the Committee has come to an end with the efflux of time; therefore, Regulation 14 has no applicability to the facts of the case. In view thereof, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. The same is dismissed.