WPMS/806/2019 of MOHD. ASIF MIYAN Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 806 of 2019

Mohd. Asif Miyan

……….Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others

…Respondents

Present:-Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A.K. Arya, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1. Mr. Arhar Baig, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Nishat Intezar, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 3. the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1. Mr. Arhar Baig, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Nishat Intezar, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 3.

Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

The petitioner was nominated as member of Waqf Board in the year 2016 under the category of Member of Parliament.

2. At this juncture, it is made clear that although the petitioner was not Member of Parliament, but his nomination under that category was made by making certain relaxations by the State Government, which was permissible under sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (from hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Under sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act, if person of the category given in sub-clauses (i) to (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) is not available, the State Government can nominate such persons as member of the Board as it deems fit.

3. According to the petitioner, he would always be treated to have been the member under the category of Member of Parliament. This category of petitioner was changed in the year 2018 by the impugned order dated 15.11.2018, by

which the category of the petitioner was changed from the Member of Parliament to that of Member of Bar Council.

4. It is admitted by all the parties here that under each category given in sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act, two members can be nominated by the State Government. These categories given in sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act are as under:-

“(i) Muslim Members of Parliament from the State or, as the case may be, [the National Capital Territory of Delhi],

(ii) Muslim Members of the State Legislature,

(iii) Muslim members of the Bar Council of the concerned State or Union Territory:

(iv) mutawallis of the auqaf having an annual income of rupees one lakh and above;”

5. By the impugned order dated 15.11.2018 the category of the petitioner has been changed from Member of Parliament to that of Member of Bar Council. Again the petitioner though is not member of Bar Council but here too the relaxation as given to him under sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act would prevail.

6. It is nobody’s case that the petitioner has been removed from the membership of the Waqf Board or his membership has been in any way diluted by this change of the category, yet the petitioner has filed the writ petition on mere apprehension that now since another member has also been inducted as member of the Waqf Board, namely, Munfait Ali under the category of member of Bar Council, who is actually member of Bar Council, the petitioner is liable to be ousted.

7. This apprehension of the petitioner is totally misconceived.

8. categorical statement has been given before this Court by the learned State Counsel as well as by the learned counsel for respondent no. 3 that the petitioner does not stand to be disqualified nor the petitioner is being removed and therefore there is no cause of action.

9. In view thereof, no interference is being called for by this Court in the matter. The writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed.

10. However, it is made clear that change of the category of the petitioner will not prejudice or lower down his status as Member in any manner. The petitioner shall not be disqualified or removed except in accordance with law or inter alia under the provisions as given in Section 16 read with Section 20 of the Act.

Ankit/

(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)

22.08.2019