Allowed

Sri Sagheer Khan v. Karnataka State Board of Awqof Darul Awqaf

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2024WP/9869/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka Board of Awqaf approved an eleven-member Managing Committee for a Kadur mosque whose members did not match the General Body's selection, contrary to Clause 8.1(c) of the approved Scheme of Administration. The High Court quashed the approval and allowed fresh elections or selection per the Scheme.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 30.03.2023 approving the Managing Committee list quashed; liberty reserved to respondents to conduct elections or selection per law.

Sri Sagheer Khan Vs Karnataka State Board of Awqof… — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:47350 WP No. 9869 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 9869 OF 2023 (GM-WAKF)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SAGHEER KHAN S/O HABIBULLA KHAN AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT WARD NO.22, K.M. ROAD, KADUR - 577 548 CHICKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

¶9

SRI FAIROZ KHAN S/O AMEER JAN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS WARD NO.18, YEMME DODDI ROAD KADUR - 577 548 CHICKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

¶10

SRI NOORULLA S/O MASTER AHMED

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶13

R/AT 1^ST CROSS, MUDIYAPPA EXTN., PATTANAGERE TALUK, KADUR - 577 548 CHICKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. KHALEEMULLAH SHARIFF, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AWQOF "DARUL AWQAF" NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052 BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:47350 WP No. 9869 of 2023

¶20

THE DISTRICT WAQF ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHICKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 101 BY ITS WAQF OFFICER.

¶21

LABBABIN SUNNATI JAMATH MOSQUE SUNNI STATION ROAD, KADUR-577548, CHICKAMAGALURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶22

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KARNATAKA BOARD OF AWQAF NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU-560052.

¶23

(R4 CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 26.05.2023)

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. SYED IMRAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. SWATHI ASHOK, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R4)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. KSBA/CMC/13/CMR/2020-21, DATED 30.03.2023 PASSED BY THE R1 PRODUCED AT ANNEXUREP AND ETC.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER DICTATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The respondent No.1, in the exercise of powers conferred under Section 69(1) of the Waqf Act, 1995, accorded approval for the Scheme of Administration of Lababeen Mosque, Kadur Town and Taluk, Chikmagalur District.

¶31

By order dated 11.07.2018, respondent No.1 appointed Sri Mohammed Ibrahim, Head Master of National

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:47350 WP No. 9869 of 2023

¶34

School, Hassan, as the Election Officer, and the Waqf Officer, Chikmagalur District, as the Assistant Election Officer, to conduct elections for the Managing Committee of Lababeen Sunnath Jamath Masjid, Kadur Town, Chikmagalur District (respondent No.3).

¶35

Subsequently, on 07.02.2023, an Administrator was appointed as a caretaker for the management of respondent No.3. The Administrator later submitted a proposal seeking approval for the constitution of an eleven-member Managing Committee to manage respondent No.3 for a period of three years or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

¶36

Respondent No.1 accorded approval to the proposal submitted by the Administrator. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶38

Respondent No.1 had earlier approved the Scheme of Administration for respondent No.3 - Lababeen Mosque, Kadur Town and Taluk, Chikmagalur District. As per the approved Scheme of Administration, a specific procedure is prescribed for the election or selection of members of the Managing Committee.

¶39

Clause 8.1(c) of Chapter 6 of the Scheme of Administration provides for the constitution of a Managing

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:47350 WP No. 9869 of 2023

¶42

Committee and mandates that it shall be elected or selected once every three years by the members of the General Body. This Clause explicitly stipulates that the Managing Committee must be constituted either through an election or by selection by the General Body members.

¶43

In the present case, the General Body of respondent No.3 - Masjid passed a resolution selecting eleven members for the constitution of the Managing Committee and submitted the proposal to respondent No.2 for approval. However, respondent No.1, by the impugned order, approved a list of members for the Managing Committee that does not align with the list submitted by the General Body of respondent No.3.

¶44

As Clause 8.1(c) of Chapter 6 of the Scheme of Administration clearly requires the Managing Committee to be constituted either by election or selection by the General Body, the approval granted by respondent No.1 to a list that deviates from the General Body’s selection is contrary to the Scheme of Administration. Consequently, the impugned order is legally unsustainable.

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i) The petition stands allowed.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:47350 WP No. 9869 of 2023

¶49

ii) The impugned order dated 30.3.2023 passed by the respondent No.1 vide Annexure-P is hereby quashed;

¶50

iii. Liberty is reserved for the respondents to conduct elections or selection of the members for the constitution of the Managing Committee of respondent No.3 in accordance with the law.

¶51

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶52

BKM

Sri Sagheer Khan v. Karnataka State Board of Awqof Darul Awqaf

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sagheer Khan v. Karnataka State Board of Awqof Darul Awqaf

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alwin Suman Crasta Vs Poornananda C

Swamy Vs Sri N Chandru

Eit Services India Private Ltd. Vs Electronics City Industrial Township Authority (Elcita)

Sri. Suresh. D. M. Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. H Duggappa Vs the Commissioner

Sri. K. N. Prakash Vs the Senior Sub Registrar