THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA vs. SHAIKH MAHEMUD

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2784 OF 2022 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.11652 of 2021) THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA  … APPELLANT(S) Versus SHAIKH MAHEMUD & ANR. … RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R Leave granted. 2. The appointment of the first respondent herein as a Member of the   Maharashtra   State   Board   of   Waqfs,   by   a   notification   dated 13.09.2019,   was   cancelled   by   a   subsequent   notification   dated 04.03.2022, but the said cancellation was set aside by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay as arbitrary, in a writ petition filed by the first respondent, forcing the State of Maharashtra to come up with the above appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. Sachin Patil, learned standing counsel for the State of Maharashtra, Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, learned counsel appearing   for   the   first   respondent   and   Mr.   Siddharth   Bhatnagar, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2022.04.09 12:42:09 IST Reason: learned senior counsel appearing for the second respondent who has been appointed in the place of the first respondent. 2 The   notification   dated   13.09.2019   issued   by   the   Minorities 4. Development Department of the State of Maharashtra appointing the first respondent as a Member of the Maharashtra State Board of Waqfs reads as follows: “…In exercise of the powers conferred by sub­section (9) and clause (c) sub­section (1) of section 14 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (43 of 1995), and in supersession of all earlier notifications issued in this behalf in so far as they related to the nomination of a person amongst Muslims,   who   has   professional   experience   in   town   planning   or business management, social work, finance or revenue, agriculture and development activities, the Government of Maharashtra hereby appoints from the category of “who has professional experience in town planning or business management, social work, finance or revenue,   agriculture   and   development   activities”,   Shri   Mahemud Mahebub Shaikh as a Member on the Maharashtra State Boards of Waqfs, having its headquarters at Panchakki, Aurangabad for a period of five years from the date of publication of this notification or until further orders, whichever is earlier…” The relevant part of the notification dated 4.03.2020 issued by 5. the State, cancelling the appointment of the first respondent reads as follows: “…And   whereas,   the   Government   of   Maharashtra   considers   it expedient  to  cancel  the appointment  of  Shri Mahemud Mahebud Shaikh as a Member of the said Board; Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by sub­ section (9) read with clause (c) of sub­section (1) of section 14 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (43 of 1995) and of all other powers enabling it in that   behalf,   the   Government   of   Maharashtra   hereby  cancels   the appointment   of   Shri   Mahemud   Mahebud   Shaikh   of   the   said Board…” 6. The High Court, by the order impugned in this appeal, set aside the cancellation of appointment on the ground   inter alia,         that (i) Section 15 of the Waqf Act, 1995 prescribes a fixed tenure of five years, which can be curtailed only if the member is disqualified in 3 terms of Section 16 or removed in terms of Section 20;   that there is (ii) no place for the doctrine of pleasure and such appointments cannot be cancelled at the whims and fancies of the Government;   (iii)   that the reliance placed upon the State Government upon Rule 15 of the Rules of Business in support of their contention that the appointment of the respondent   required   the   approval   of   the   Chief   Minister,   but   as   a matter   of   fact   such   approval   was   not   obtained,   cannot   have   any application to the case since the position of the Member of the State Waqf Board cannot be equated to that of a statutory tribunal; and  (iv) that   the   cancellation   of   appointment   of   the   first   respondent   was arbitrary, warranting the interference of the High Court.  7. At the outset we should point out that the High Court was right in holding that the  post  of Member of  the Waqf Board cannot be equated to that of a Member of the Tribunal and that Item No.23 under   Rule   15   of   the   Rules   of   Business   of   the   Maharashtra Government issued in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution has no application to the case on hand. 8. But the findings of the High Court  (i)  that the term of office of a Member of the Board stipulated under Section 15 of the Waqf Act cannot   be   curtailed   except   in   the   case   of   disqualification   under Section 16 or removal under Section 20; and   that the cancellation (ii) 4 of   appointment   was   arbitrary,   are   incapable   of   being   upheld.   The reasons are not difficult to be deciphered. While Section 13 of the Act deals   with   the   establishment   of   a   Board   of   Waqfs   ( now   the nomenclature is changed as Board of ‘Auqaf’ under Amendment Act 27 of 2013 ), Section 14 deals with the composition of the Board, election of members and the manner of election of the Chairperson of the Board. Broadly, the appointment of the Members of the Board shall be by two different methods namely,  (i)  election from each of the electoral colleges as stipulated in clause (b) of sub­section (1) of Section 14; and  nominations by the State Government in terms of clauses (c), (d) (ii) and (e) of sub­section (1) of Section 14. 9. It   is   relevant   to   point   out   that   the   appointment   of   the   first respondent was by the method of nomination by the State Government in terms of clause (c) of sub­section (1) of Section 14. The appointment under   both   categories   ( election   or   nomination )   should   be   by   a notification  issued   by   the  State  Government  and   published   in  the official Gazette. This is by virtue of sub­section (9) of Section 14.  Sub­ section (9) of Section 14 reads  as follows:­

5 It is true that Section 15 prescribes a term of office of five years 10. for the members of the Board, from the date of the notification issued under Section 14(9).  This Section 15 reads as follows:­

11. Though Section 14(9) is common to the appointment under both categories and though Section 15 speaks about the term of office of members appointed by a notification under Section 14(9), nomination always stands on a slightly different footing than election. Perhaps, as per   the   scheme   of   the   Act,   it   may   not   be   possible   for   the   State Government   to   breach   the   process   of   election   from   each   of   the electoral colleges under clause (b) of sub­section (1) of Section 14, by curtailing the term of office of such elected members. But the same logic cannot be extended to nominated members. In other words, it may not be possible to hold that there is no elbow space for the State Government in the cases of nomination covered by clauses (c), (d) or (e). 12. It   must   be   noted   that   under   clause   (e)   of   sub­section   (1)   of Section 14, an officer of the State Government not below the rank of Joint Secretary to Government may be nominated to the Board. If Section 15 is construed in the manner in which the High Court has 6 construed, such a nominated officer of the State Government may have to be allowed to continue, even if he reaches superannuation before completing five years of tenure.  Therefore, it is not possible to accept the view of the High Court that the term of office prescribed under Section 15 cannot be curtailed.  This is so at least in respect of a nominated member. 13. For   holding   that   the   cancellation   of   appointment   of   the   first respondent  was  arbitrary, the   High  Court did  not  really  have any material. The only reason why the High court held it to be arbitrary is that the order of  cancellation  of  appointment did  not  contain any reason and that the cancellation went against Section 15. For holding the action of the Executive to be arbitrary, there must be a factual basis. It did not exist in this case. 14. It was contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent that   the   notification   of   cancellation   of   appointment   was   issued   in exercise of the powers conferred by sub­section (9) read with clause (c) of sub­section (1) of Section 14.  Since these provisions deals only with appointment and not with removal, it was contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the notification of cancellation was not in accordance with law. 15. But the above contention loses sight of the fact that the power to 7 appoint   would   include   the   power   of   cancellation   of   appointment. Therefore, the said contention is liable to be rejected. 16. It   was   next   contended   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the   first respondent that the procedure prescribed under Section 20 of the Act for   the   removal   of   the   respondent   was   not   followed.   But   this contention is unsustainable, in view of the fact that the respondent was not removed from the office of membership of the Waqf Board. His appointment was cancelled by the notification impugned in the writ petition. Therefore, Section 20 has no application to the case. 17. In view of the above, we find that the order of the High Court is unsustainable.  Therefore,  the  appeal  is allowed  and  the  impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondent before the High Court shall stand dismissed. …..…………....................J   (Hemant Gupta) .…..………......................J (V. Ramasubramanian) New Delhi April  06, 2022 8 ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.11 SECTION IX S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11652/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-02-2021 in WP No. 3983/2020 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay At Aurangabad) THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Petitioner(s) VERSUS SHAIKH MAHEMUD AND ANR. Respondent(s) (I.R. and IA No.90225/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.90226/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.90227/2021-APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING ORIGINAL VAKALATNAMA/OTHER DOCUMENT) (IA No. 90227/2021 - APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING ORIGINAL VAKALATNAMA/OTHER DOCUMENT) IA No. 129111/2021 - APPLICATION FOR VACATION OF INTERIM ORDER IA No. 157872/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA No. 152921/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA No. 159950/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA No. 90225/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 90226/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 152925/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 170308/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 159952/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 112764/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 157873/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 152922/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 5677/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 159951/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 112763/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 06-04-2022 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Adv. Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, AOR 9 Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Nair, Adv. Ms Pranati Bhatnagar, Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew, AOR Mr. Aaditya S., Adv. Ms. Pracheta Kar, Adv. Mr. Nadeem Afroz, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Arguments concluded. Leave granted. Appeal is allowed. Reasons to follow. (JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER 10 ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.11 SECTION IX S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11652/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-02-2021 in WP No. 3983/2020 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay At Aurangabad) THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Petitioner(s) VERSUS SHAIKH MAHEMUD AND ANR. Respondent(s) (I.R. and IA No.90225/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.90226/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.90227/2021-APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING ORIGINAL VAKALATNAMA/OTHER DOCUMENT) (IA No. 90227/2021 - APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING ORIGINAL VAKALATNAMA/OTHER DOCUMENT) IA No. 129111/2021 - APPLICATION FOR VACATION OF INTERIM ORDER IA No. 157872/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA No. 152921/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA No. 159950/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA No. 90225/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 90226/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 152925/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 170308/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 159952/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 112764/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 157873/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 152922/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 5677/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 159951/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 112763/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 06-04-2022 This matter was called on for hearing today. [THE REASONED ORDER IS UPLOADED ON 09.04.2022] CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR 11 For Respondent(s) Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Adv. Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, AOR Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Nair, Adv. Ms Pranati Bhatnagar, Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew, AOR Mr. Aaditya S., Adv. Ms. Pracheta Kar, Adv. Mr. Nadeem Afroz, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R On 06.04.2022, the following order was passed :- “Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Arguments concluded. Leave granted. Appeal is allowed. Reasons to follow.” The reasoned order is being uploaded today i.e. on 09.04.2022. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. (JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on the file)