LAWS(KAR)-2014-3-146

MOULANA SYED MOHAMMED IBRAHIM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On March 28, 2014
Moulana Syed Mohammed Ibrahim Appellant
V/S
The State Of Karnataka Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of the order of learned Single Judge dated 08.01.2014 passed in WP Nos.43392- 43393/2011. In those writ petitions, the original petitioners had challenged appointment and nomination of respondent Nos.4 to 6 as members of the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs (for short 'the Board') by Notification dated 20.08.2011 issued by the State of Karnataka, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 14(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short 'the Act') read with Rule 32 of the Karnataka Wakf Rules, 1997 (for short 'the Rules'). The appointment was for a period of five years as stipulated under Section 15 of the Act.

(2.) The petitions were initially filed as a public interest litigation. Preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the petitions as a public interest litigation was raised, and by order dated 13.03.2012 a Division Bench of this Court over-ruled that objection. Thereafter, by order dated 08.01.2013 another Division Bench of this Court held that any citizen could invoke the writ jurisdiction for a writ of quo warranto with regard to appointment to a public office in violation of the provisions, but also held that as the petitions pertained to only one particular section of the community and not public at large, the petition was not maintainable as a public interest litigation. In that view of the matter the petitions were ordered to be listed before learned Single Judge having roster. Thereafter, the petitions were heard by learned Single Judge and by the impugned order, the nominations of respondent Nos.5 and 6 were invalidated. A direction was also issued to reconsider the names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 under amended Section 14 of the Act, as during the pendency of petitions Amendment Act 27 of 2013 had come in to force. The said order is assailed in these petitions.

(3.) We have heard learned senior counsel and other counsel for the appellants and learned senior counsel assisted by other counsel for the respondents.