KARNATAKA WAQFS PROTECTION JOINT ACTION COMMITTEE Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MINISTRY WELFARE DEPARTMENT & WAQF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Karnataka Waqfs Protection Joint Action Committee, is aggrieved by two orders, both dated 12.03.2018, (Annexures 'D' and 'E' respectively), whereby the Administrator, who has been appointed in place of the Waqf Board, has appointed a new District Waqf Advisory Committee for Bengaluru North and Bengaluru South.

(2.) According to the petitioner, by notification dated 19.08.2011, the Government constituted the Waqf Board for a period of five years, i.e., from 19.08.2011 to 18.08.2016. However, instead of reconstituting a fresh Board at the expiry of the term, by notification dated 19.08.2016, the State Government has appointed an Administrator to manage the day to day affairs of the administration of the Board for a period of six months. Consequently, Mr. Mohsin, I. A. S., Secretary to the Government, Minority Welfare Department, was appointed as the Administrator of the Karnataka Waqf Board. Acting as an Administrator, the respondent No.2, has bifurcated Bengaluru district into Bengaluru North and Bengaluru South, by the orders dated 103.2018, and has appointed members for the District Waqf Advisory Committee, both for Bengaluru North and Bengaluru South. Hence this petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. B. A. Belliappa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the State does not have the power to appoint an Administrator in place of the Board. Therefore, the very appointment of the Administrator, is an illegal one. Secondly, according to Regulation 18 of the Government Wakf Regulations, 2010 ('the Regulations', for short), the jurisdiction of a District Waqf Advisory Committee shall extend to the whole of a Revenue District. Therefore, the Administrator was not justified in dividing Bengaluru District into Bengaluru North and Bengaluru South. Therefore, the bifurcation and the appointment of the District Waqf Advisory Committee is contrary to Regulation 18 of the Regulations. Hence the impugned orders are legally unsustainable. Therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside by this Court.