MD. SHAHBAZ QURESHI Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this instant writ petition, the writ petitioners have assailed the impugned notifications dtd. 5/1/2023 and 13/1/2023, issued by the respondent No. 1, reconstituting the Meghalaya Board of Waqf, on the ground that, the same is in violation of Sec. 14 of The Waqf Act, 1995.

(2.) However, at the outset, Mr. S. Jindal, learned counsel for the respondents No. 5-8, 11 and 12 has raised questions about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of the locus of the writ petitioners. As such, this matter has been taken up first, to decide on the question of maintainability.

(3.) Mr. S. Jindal, learned counsel submits that, the petitioners in question are neither aspirants, or are in contention to be members of the Meghalaya Board of Waqf, and as such, have no locus to maintain their claim as made out in the writ petition in their challenge, to the reconstitution of the Meghalaya Board of Waqf. Learned counsel has submitted that, the writ petitioners can in no manner be described as aggrieved persons, inasmuch as, no legal injury has been inflicted upon them. It is further submitted that, there has been no violation of their legal rights, and they have not shown in which manner their interest has been affected. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has relied upon Para " 14 of the case of S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India and Anr. reported in 1981 Supp SCC 87.