THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus SHAIKH MAHEMUD & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 134 · Decided: 06-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
134
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
   [2022] 3 S.C.R. 134
134
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
v.
SHAIKH MAHEMUD & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2784 of 2022)
APRIL  06, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Waqfs – Waqf Act, 1995 – ss. 14 and 15 – Appointment of
first respondent as a Member of the Maharashtra State Board of
Waqfs, by notification dated 13.09.2019 issued by the Minorities
Development Department of the State of Maharashtra, was cancelled
by a subsequent notification dated 04.03.2022 – Said cancellation
was set aside by the High Court as arbitrary, in a writ petition filed
by the first respondent – On appeal, held: 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 s.15 –For holding the action of the
Executive to be arbitrary, there must be a factual basis – It did not
exist in this case.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.2784
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.02.2021 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.3983
of 2020.
Sachin Patil, Adv. for the Appellant.
Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv., Nishant R. Katneshwarkar,
Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Gaurav Nair, Ms. Pranati Bhatnagar, Ms.
Anne Mathew, Aaditya S., Ms. Pracheta Kar, Nadeem Afroz, Advs. for
the Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
135
The following Order of the Court was passed:
ORDER
1. 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, learned
senior counsel appearing for the second respondent who has been
appointed in the place of the first respondent.
4. The notification dated 13.09.2019 issued by the Minorities
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 sub-section (9) and
clause (c) sub-section (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…”
5. The relevant part of the notification dated 4.03.2020 issued by
the State, cancelling the appointment of the first respondent reads as
follows:
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SHAIKH MAHEMUD 
& ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
136
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
“…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 sub-section (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, (i) that 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 terms of Section 1

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.