This Court quashed two orders regarding the formation of a new Waqf Managing Committee where the selection process lacked transparency, ignored objections, and violated election procedures under the Waqf Act.
Orders dated 29.01.2024 and 16.03.2024 quashed. Respondent No.2 directed to consider representations and conduct elections.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 102780 OF 2024 (GM-WAKF)
BETWEEN:
GIRIJA A BYAHATTI
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA DHARWAD BENCH
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 29-01-2024 BEARING NO. DWO/DHD/CMC/60/DHD/2023-24/587 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-G; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 16/03/2024 BEARING NO. KSBA/CMC/67/DHD/2023-24 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-H; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS AND CONDUCT ELECTIONS IN TERMS OF ANNEXURE-F TO F-2.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 04.09.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13124 WP No. 102780 of 2024
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH)
This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 29.01.2024 bearing No.DWO/DHD/CMC/60/DHD/2023-24/587 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-G and to issue a writ in the nature certiorari quashing the order dated 16.03.2024 bearing No.KSBA/CMC/67/DHD/2023-24 passed by the respondent No.1 vide Annexure-H and also to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to consider the representations and conduct elections in terms of Annexure-F to F-2.
multiplicity of proceedings. The tenure of the erstwhile Managing Committee for the Usmaniya Masjid Muslim Jamath Barakotri, was determined by efflux of time. It is the contention of the petitioner that they have given a representation to respondent No.2 to conduct elections to the Managing Committee on 20.11.2023 as per Annexure-
A. Pursuantly, Respondent No. 2 issued a notice to the president of the 3rd respondent waqf calling for the necessary documents along with the fresh proposal for constitution of fresh management committee. The same is produced as Annexure-B. It is contended that erstwhile President of the Waqf without following the procedure stipulated under Section 65 of the Waqf Act, in collusion with certain other members, passed a resolution on 01.12.2023 selecting the members of the new executive committee and the said resolution is produced as Annexure-C. It is contended that the said resolution is passed secretively without announcing the same on three consecutive Friday's and further the old members are being selected again without conducting election and the
President is also ineligible candidate in view of the pending criminal case against him in Crime No.149/2022 and the FIR is produced as Annexure-D.
there is no whisper about the objections raised by the petitioners in the said communication. The copy of the communication is produced as Annexure-G. The respondent No.1 mechanically approved the scheme for new Managing Committee vide order dated 16.03.2024 which is produced herewith as Annexure-H and having no other alternative remedy invoked the writ jurisdiction.
Section 24 of the Waqf Act read with Rule 2 of Chapter VI of scheme of management and the respondent No.2 totally ignored the objections submitted by petitioners calling for an election and forwarded the same for recommendation of approval in terms of Annexure-G and as a result of the same, Annexure H was issued and without conducting any proper election, the present President has been elected and he is ineligible in view of pending criminal case against him. The counsel would also contend that the alleged resolution has been passed without proper public announcement and coram and no notice was issued as per Section 65 of the Auqf Act which stipulates that the General Body Meeting ought to have been convened after public announcement on three consecutive Friday's.
Annexures-R1 to R3 and no such notice was given on 03.11.2023, 10.11.2023 and 17.11.2023. If those notices are given, there was no need of issuance of Anenxure-B dated 07.12.2023. Hence, these three documents are created. The counsel would also vehemently contend that Annexure-C is a resolution and the same is also created without calling any General Body Meeting and hence, Annexures-G and H require to be quashed.
the same can be approved but there is no unanimous election.
The counsel would submit that the same has been narrated in the statement of objections and procedure has been followed and Annexures-R1 to R3 clearly disclose that public notice dated 03.11.2023, 10.11.2023 and 17.11.2023 and Annexure-C was passed. The respondent NO.2 also issued public notice on inviting objections from
public to the proposal submitted by the Masjid as per Annexure-E. The objections dated 02.01.2024 and 12.01.2024 were received within the time stipulated and other objection was received on 30.01.2024. The Respondent No.2 sent its recommendation to respondent No.1 for approval of the committee and thereafter only Annexure-H was issued. The counsel would also contend that the registration of criminal case against the President is not a bar unless he has been convicted.
followed and no need for exercising power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
1 (2011) SCCR 89
2 (2014) 16 SCC 65
important to note that Annexure-B was issued on 07.12.2023 after Annexure-A i.e., in respect of constitution of Managing Committee for the management of Usamaniya Masjid Muslim Jamath Barakotri, Janatha Quarters, University Road, Dharwad and the District Waqf Officer directed the President/Secretary to the said Usamaniya Masjid Muslim Jamath to submit the proposal for reconstitution of Managing Committee of their Waqf Institution along with the particulars and sought for details, totally 12 in number.
at Annexure-A was given to the District Waqf Officer on 20.11.2023 and also the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf issued notice on 07.12.2023, immediately they would have given reply stating that already process has been issued for conducting election stating the above Annexures-R1 to R3 but no reply was given to Annexure-A. When the representation was given to hold election, the same ought to have been intimated to the petitioners that process has been initiated. It is also important to note that the respondent No.2 relied upon Annexure-C i.e., dated 01.12.2023 which discloses that General Body Meeting was called and resolution was passed and in the said resolution, there is no any reference of Annexures-R1 to R3 that process has been commenced and based on that process only i.e., notices of 3 days was given and unanimous decision was taken. The very unanimous decision is disputed by the petitioners. It is also important to note that the objections are filed in terms of AnnexuresF, F1 and F2 and also it has to be noted that Annexure-G
was issued on 29.01.2024 wherein it is stated that General Body Meeting was called and unanimously selected the Managing Committee though reference was made that one Sri Mohammed Umar M Soudagar and others have filed objections along with others, though enclosed the copy in the said communication, no decision was taken on the objections except referring the objections of one person but there are three objections.
rightly contended by the petitioners that by secretively selected the Managing Committee and Annexures-R1 to R- 3 came into existence under suspicious circumstances and nothing has been found regarding issuance of notice on 03.11.2023, 10.11.2023 and 17.11.2023 and none of the orders at Annexures-G and H disclose about the same. Hence, there is a force in the contention of the petitioners’ counsel that Annexures-R1 to R3 are created.
on the same but Annexure-H shows that no objections are received and all these process is against the material on record and hence, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner also discloses regarding procedure to elect the office bearers as well as discussed Section 24 of the Waqf Act.
ORDER
Sd/(H.P. SANDESH) JUDGE
Naa CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 95
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the orders approving the new Managing Committee without holding elections and ignoring objections were violative of natural justice and the Waqf Act.
Whether the document creation by the respondents regarding prior notices vitiated the selection process of the Managing Committee.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the existence of an alternate remedy under the Waqf Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Board of Wakf, West Bengal vs. anis Fatma Begum and anotherReferred¶67
Board of Wakf, West Bengal vs. anis Fatma Begum and another (2011) SCCR 89
Akkode Jumayath Palli Paripalana Committee vs. P.V. Ibrahim HajiReferred¶67
Akkode Jumayath Palli Paripalana Committee vs. P.V. Ibrahim Haji (2014) 16 SCC 65 · Who else cites this
Petitioners' CounselReferred¶57
W.P.No.1828/2023
3 provisions across 2 enactments
ARIF RAJISAB BASTI AND OTHS.
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQAF #6
THE DISTRICT WAQF OFFICER, DHARWAD
THE PRESIDENT OF USMANIYA MASJID MUSLIM JAMATH
H.P. SANDESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
