THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. versus K. FAZLUR RAHMAN & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 9 S.C.R. 906 · Decided: 03-11-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
906
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.
v.
K. FAZLUR RAHMAN & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3603-3605 of 2020)
NOVEMBER 03, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Waqf Act, 1995 – The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board constituted on
10.10.2017 consisted of 11 Muslim members – One Muslim Member
of Parliament; two Muslim Members of State Legislature; two senior
Muslim advocates; two Mutawallis; one person with professional
experience; two recognized scholars of Shia and Sunni Islamic
theology and one State Government Nominee – The State Government
issued a notification dated 18.09.2019 in exercise of power
u/s. 99(1) of the 1995 Act superseding the Waqf Board – The State
was of the opinion that two senior advocates who were nominated
as members u/s. 14(1)(b)(iii) proviso cannot be treated as elected
members hence the number of elected members are less than
nominated members resultantly, the Board is unable to perform its
work as per the Waqf Act, 1995 – The process for reconstituting the
Waqf Board was initiated by order dated 14.07.2020 – Three writ
petitions were filed – Two questioning the order dated 18.09.2019
and one for quashing the press release dated 14.07.2020 – All the
writ petitions were decided by the High Court by the common
judgment dated 17.08.2020 – Although, the High Court held that
supersession dated 18.09.2019 was not in accordance with law,
however, the said order was set aside insofar as the election of two
persons under Mutawallis category alone – The High Court had
quashed the order dated 18.09.2019 insofar as two members of the
board of Mutawallis constituency was concerned, process for
electing/nominating other members of the Board was untouched and
was completed – On appeal, held: s.22 is a clause which saves
proceedings of the Board from invalidity due to reason only of the
existence of any vacancy or any defect in the constitution – When
the initially Board was constituted on 10.10.2017, the objective as
enshrined in s.14 was not fulfilled even in the initial constitution,
[2020] 9 S.C.R. 906
906
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
907
the Board has been superseded not due to any action, inaction or
omission and misconduct on the part of the Board rather due to
number of elected members becoming less than to the nominated
members – The order dated 18.09.2019 spells out the reason for
supersession, Member of Parliament whose term came to end in
May, 2019, other members of the Board as constituted on
10.10.2017 were same, thus, the circumstance which has been taken
as ground for supersession of the Board was not any action of the
Board – The event of cessation of membership of an elected member
is not under control of the Board – It was the duty of the State
Government to constitute the Board as per the objectives enshrined
in s.14(4) and any lapse there in cannot be a ground for superseding
the Board – Further, the second proviso to s.99 contains an
injunction that the power of the State Government shall not be
exercised unless there is a prima facie evidence of financial
irregularity, misconduct or violation of the provisions of the Act –
In view of the second proviso to s. 99, present was not a case where
State could have exercised its power of supersession of the Board –
The High Court did not commit any error in holding supersession
as contrary to law – Insofar as setting aside the notification partially
as regard to two elected members of the Mutawalli category is
concerned, only one category petitioners were before the High
Court, it confined relief to that category – The High Court has not
interfered with the fresh constitution of the Board by election and
nomination of other categories except the category u/s. 14(1)(b)(iv)
– Thus, the order of the High Court is upheld.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The Waqf Act, 1995 enumerates various powers
and functions of the Board. When the Board is constituted it is
entitled to exercise its powers and functions as enumerated in
various Sections including Sections 32, 38, 39, 41, 48 and 53,
etc. Section 22 is a clause which saves proceedings of the Board
from invalidity due to reason only of the existence of any vacancy
or any defect in the constitution. [Para 21][921-E-F]
2. That in event there is vacancy in the Board or any defect
thereof, the proceedings or act of the Board are not to be
invalidated which has been saved by Section 22. Thus, when the
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. v. K. FAZLUR
RAHMAN
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.