IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS me 20*" DAY or OCTOBER 2o:uf"'»,
BEFORE :
Ti-IE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MOI-IAN sHANTANA:GoVoo'ARa' A
WRIT PETIT;QN No.1476,g;:z3r1§..(_,§_rgr|_-_\:_\_Ijxi<'I!=\,
Bggwggn :
1. Khalid Rhmed
S/o Late Mohammed Ali,
Aged about 52 years,
Chairman, ;
Karnataka State Board of 'Wa-Ms"
No.25, Govers,Road, V V»
Cox Town, , N _,
Bangafore
2. A.M.Hi.ndeuSgi'ri
S/0 Late M'oif1amrh,ed_,G'house,
Agedzabout.70y'e,ar's, ' '
Former M'i'niste_r," "
Govt. of"K._adr'n,ataka'.and
Member, K'a rnataka ':5ta"te
Board 'of Wakfs _ _
'Mafia?-.d'.ar"G,a||E, P."B;'Road,
» VH-u,biE_, __
3. - K.rM'.Ibra'i2-rm, "
S/,0 Moharnmed
Aged 'a.bout 67 years,
Fornfie,r1'M.L.A. and
" Member, Karnataka State
-Board of Wakfs,
'Near KPTCL,
___7Banga|ore--Manga|ore Road,
Sunfikuppa
-2-
Kodagu--571 237.
. Syed Mujtaba Hussain Jagirdar
S.o Syed Abduiia Hussaini Jagirdar
Aged about 49 years,
HIG I KHB Colony,
Near Jamia Masjid,
Bijarpu-586 104.
Mouiana Zayeem Raza Abidi
' S/o Syed Moosa Raza,
Aged about 39 years,
Member, Karnataka State _
Board of Wakfs '
No.37, Serpentine Street,
Richmond Town,
BangaEore--56O O25.' '_
R.Abdu|
. S/o late Rauf'~--Kf1an., '
Aged about 5-111y"ears,'--. ~
Chairh*ia'iiA,.. K-arnafta*ka'S'tate '
Bar Cou_nciE'a--n,d.__"' ~ I
Member, ._Karnai:ak.a'i'State
Board ofgwakfs " f _ '
No.20/22";..2"d Floor,-,_ A '
Bi,t;japp.a Building,
C{.ibb,o.npet Mai'n-Roa'd,
vfiiangaéfore';-._
, ,,
S,/o Syedrfidimed Aga Saheb
Aged a boat 58 years,
Member, Karnataka State
or Boardof Wakfs
V' ,Ma'dar Khan Mohalia,
Ramanagram,
Ramanagram District. .. Petitioners
( By Sri Padmanabha Mahala, Sr.Counsei
for Sri Naveed Ahmed & Sri Samud Khan,
Advocates )
And :
1. State of Karnataka
Represented by its Secretary A_
Department of Minority Welfare
Government of Karnataka -
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangaiore.
2. The Hon'b!e MinisterVfo_r:y'Wa;F<f, ..
H33 and Minority Weifaref ' R' "
Government ofy.Karnata.ka_,'~w. '
Vikasa Soudha, I
Bangaiore. "A"
3. Prof.Dr.Mumtiaz;*';A!i Khan"-A.' .. " V
The Hro'rr'r'b--!eA"ifiainiste-r for
Wald}: Haj .and.gM..i_n'orit'-,5 Weifa re
Gover'n_m'ent' of 'i~{a'rnat4a'i<--a,"
Vikasa S.oudyha,=.. " '
Bangaiore'.-., - -
Ka r5:aata'ka_ Musiirr-,...§anga rsha
" Sai'nithi:'(Reg.d.),
A .vN'o,V3ys-/4,~ f;"='Fc:ross,
.IV1«araApvpa'~«,Garjde'h, J.C.Nagar,
Banga!ore+'j56'0 006,
Re'p.byfits, President
M.3.A!§.g_ .. Respondents
i( ;B’y,Sr§ Ravivarma Kumar, Sr.Counsei
for Sri J.Prashanth, Advocate for R-1
; and Sri Kaleemuila Shariff, Advocate
for R-3 8: 4)
This Writ Petition is fiied under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned
order dated 15.1.2010 passed by the R2 at Annexure.-._P..___”._
This Writ Petition having been heard and
orders on 1-10-2010, pronounced the same on”r«2_0″.’gQc’tober ‘
2010.
ORDER0
Petitioners being the of
the Karnataka State Boapfiijfiuherteinafter referred to as
‘Wakf Board’ for _::-;hc__>rt),:ihay-e1:so’ug’htiorr:gu'”a’shing the order
dated 15.1.22-0310 respondent vide
Annexure:T.PVf,””~.b:yV;’V«1i3i’hVi”cb_:”the ” Board was superceded
under ,triefi’\Na’kf Act, 1995. By superceding
the Wakf Boardv, ‘theaiV2″‘d::””i_jespondent has heid that charge
…V.i\Eos.1«,.}g2’v, ‘S, 6, Siare fully proved and charge No.4 is
__ Further it has been heid that charge Nos.3,
9’a.nc:._V10V”ar’e._notJproved.
“”v.Sri.Padrnanabha Mahaie, iearned Senior Counsel
on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the 2″”
Qfreuspondent has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order,
r X)
-5-
inasmuch as, it is the Secretary, Department of Minority
Welfare, Government of Karnataka, who has got jurisdiction
to pass such an order on behaif of the State Government;
that the Minister belongs to a poiitical party and theyrefpore,
there is every likeiihood of he being biased
petitioners who belong to a different political
elected body of Wakf Board shouid notilvhave bgeen’
by the respondent No.2 oniy on .
allegations made against the petitiyoners’–.are_ail”falilse and it
perverse; that the President of th’e”Waircee’ded its powers nor has misused
its poi/xf;jers;.that Board has not faiied to compiy with
VH7-._th,’e’V.directli:ons7–._ivssued by the State Government under
Sectioryis of the Wakf Act; and that appreciation of
V the mhateriail on record by the 2″” respondent is improper and
and consequentiy, the 2″” respondent has passed
._1anI. erroneous order. Certain ailegations are aiso made
V’
_ 5 _
against the concerned Minister who is arrayed in person as
respondent No.3.
3. The writ petition is opposed by the respondents by
filing statement of objections. Sri Ravivarma Kumar, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of 1″ respondent
that the 2″” respondent is justified in passing
order, inasmuch as, he has got the jurisdiictioén unde«r_Se’ctiori.
99 of the Wakf Act. He furtherr,subnr:iitte’d,_i. that,_~v_at’ an
point of time, the petitioners ha.y”e-i,conten.ded,jhthatrwneither if
the Secretary nor the Urcler Secretary-.of the”Go”yernment
have got'”j’ur’isdi,ctiio:n”to’=.p’roceed'””under the provisions of
Section $59, of matter of supercession of
the Wakf Boa-rd,’ .,a-.nd*–._’in”~–“yiew of such a contention, the
0-fr tAb”e”””””Jepartment of Minority Welfare,
‘G,_oi’rernm’ent’ ..of..,_Karnataka, excused himseif and refused to
handl_eVbthe,’m’atter and placed the records before the 2″”
Vbl”.,.i_riespondent’:. for further orders; that the 2″” respondent was
Cio_mpe’lj§ed to hear and consider the matter in accordance
‘ law by applying the “Doctrine §%Necessity”, inasmuch
_ 7 _
as, except the Minister, there was no other authority to hear
such matter; even otherwise, the Karnataka Government
(Transaction of Business) Ruies, 1977, provide jurisd.iction.,to
the Cabinet Minister in charge of the concerned..d’epa4wrtrne:it_”‘ _
has jurisdiction to pass such order.
4. Sri Kaleemuila Shariff, iearned :f;ou’nsei_a’pp’eaVri.n–g.’o1n:
behaif of respondent No.3 subiirrfits that the Ai€e’svpQndent*.:i’
has passed the order on merits a_nti~.he’~.does’not__ha)i3e malice
against the petitioners, in’asmuc.h{.,a’:;,’4″th’e..:impugned order is
not motivated and_’t*h,at the considered the
matter onwmerits_wVi’t3h’oiit’~ij.e-ingt”prejudiceci or biased on any
aspect.
“Si. “It. is totadyvunnecessary for this Court to enter into
V’A’~._the’?of._tii.e matter at this stage, inasmuch as, during
the. writ petition, the term of office of the
V .petitio’ners: has expired. Even if the writ petition is decided in
ofvvthe petitioners, no usefui purpose wili be served,
.’_,1i__naisVmuch as, their term has expired. They cannot hold the
T *”..:V’o’fi’i’ce any more. Fresh elections wiii have to be conducted
E/”3
in accordance with law. Now the Administrator has taken the
charge and he is looking after the affairs of the Wak.f,Vi5oa~r_d.
In view of the same, this Court desists from .
merits of the matter. Consequentlyhthe im’.p’u’g’ne’_d, ”
not interfered with and the writ petition in so §t”‘réi~at’es:
to the first prayer seeking qua’sh–i.ng of~..the ,inip’ugrie.d,,,o3rder
dated 15.1.2010 is dismissed as _h_a’ving..beco’nie_infructuous.
6. However, having records, this
Court finds that. (by name 3″‘
respondent) nor ifiiveiany malice or mala
fide intention’ eij’:i:hei:i§:.3V’jart.Vyi;iaiieé’discharging their respective
duties. ‘fit in regular course of
business _have”peVrforr’ned_ thefir duties as the members of the
._’j'”W.akfz Th’e”‘*ne’giigence cannot be equated with
Thus, it cannot be said that the
petiti’oun’ersv_havei:: intentionaiiy committed any default in
V”‘~,.,p’erforma”ncAe of their duties. So aiso, the 2″” respondent (by
«..narn.e respondent) has also not exercised his jurisdiction
passing the impugned order with mala fide intention.
i/>
-9-
The records do not reveal that he is acted in a biased manner
as alieged by the petitioners. He must have made certain
observations against the petitioners during the course_ir-o_:fi.t_he
order only for the purpose of deciding the
because the 3″ respondent is aVQabinet””i~ii–ni_ster. or it
belonging to particular political party, it'<:.:7inrro_t'-.b'e s'aifd.._'t'ia:at
he is biased against the petitioners. 2 hVas*'p'ei:ffo.rVnje'd
duties in accordance with law, fai_lrVly_;_'ho_nestlyV:a:nd the best
interest of the affairs Hence, the
allegations made _by_the1.p'e'titi:onVersr,peérson'a»l'iv against the 3""
respondent it
7. without entering into the
meritsof the rriattVer,7_the”lV stigmatic observations and the
“V”-courriter 2/_aliegations'”fou’nd in the impugned order and the
parties are liable to be expunged. In view of
the’s__ame,. tfihiex. following order is made :
it * :.__Thve’ Writ Petition is disposed of as under :
(a) The first prayer of the petitioners seeking
quashing of the impugned order dated
\./\
(b)
i *bk’/A
p!.eading:sjja,rie«hereiay expunged.
– 10 _
15.1.2010 passed by the 2″” respondent is
not granted, inasmuch as, the petitioners
have completed their term of office,V_i’-.n7,_
Consequently, the first prayer has be«:,:5m::im ,,;1%
infructuous and the same is reje’cte:d_~v,a’s.
such.
The stigmatic observ_.ation’s-,_tcIJVndr.’V:i’nl_:
impugned order against the .’petitioners
and the counte’;’_aiA.Eeg,at’ion_5..,’made by the
petitioners :,a~gaip»st – _ No.2
” Aihiiriwdperson) in their