SHOKAT ALI ANSARI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the impugned order dated 12-1-1999 (Annex.P/5) passed by the Principal Secretary to the Govt. be set aside. It is also prayed that the rescindment of Annex.P/1, dated 2-1-96 may also be declared illegal and dehors the powers. It is also prayed that the appointment of respondent No. 2 as Administrator be also quashed and the Govt. be directed to reconstitute the Board as per the provisions of Section 14 of the Wakf Act, 1995. The petitioner was initially nominated by the State Govt. as member of the Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakfs, which is now known as "Rajasthan Wakf Board" and thereafter elected by the members as a Chairman/Chairperson of the Board. The term of the Board was up to 2-1-96. On 1-1-1996, the Wakf Act, 1995 came into force, therefore, he submitted his resignation in December, 1995. But by a notification dated 2-1-96 (Annex. P.1), the petitioner's term was extended with the other members of the Board till the reconstitution of the Board under the new Act. However, by a subsequent amendment order dated 10-1-97 (Annex. P/2), the words "1995 19" were added. It is the case of the petitioner that on 3-2-97 and 15-12-98 (Annexs. P/3 and P/4 respectively), he requested the State Govt. to reconstitute the Board but the Board was not reconstituted. The grievance of the petitioner in this case is that instead of reconstituting the Board, the State Govt. by its order dated 12-1-99 (Annex. P/5) appointed respondent No. 2 as the Administrator of the Board, which is dehors the provisions of the new Act. The same is challenged by the petitioner in this petition.

(2.) Mr. D. S. Shishodia, Sr. Advocate, who is assisted by Mr. Manish Shishodia, for the petitioner, submitted that the order (Annex. P/5) passed by the State Govt. is colourable exercise of its powers. He submitted that there is no such provision in the Act itself to appoint an Administrator of the Board. He further submitted that under proviso to Section 19 of the Act, the Chairman or the member has to be continued in the office until the appointment of his successor is notified in the Official Gazette. He also submitted that as per the order at Annex. P/1, the petitioner and the members of the Board were continued by way of an interim arrangement till the constitution of the new Board but in the impugned order at Annex. P/5, it has been deliberately and falsely mentioned that in the earlier order at Annex. P/1, it was mentioned that the appointment will be till further orders. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order at Annex. P/5 be quashed and set aside and the State Govt. be directed to constitute the new Wakf Board immediately.

(3.) It is true that in the order dated 2-1-96 (Annex. P/1), it has been mentioned that the petitioner and other members of the Board were continued till the constitution of the new Board by way of an interim arrangement. It is also true that it was never mentioned in that order that their appointment was till further orders. However, the fact cannot be denied and which is not in dispute that the term of the Board was only up to 2-1-96. Thus, this term came to expire long back. Under Section 15 of the Wakf Act, 1995, the members of the Board shall hold the office for a term of five years. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner completed his term of five years. However, learned counsel Mr. Shishodia submitted that he completed his term under the old Act and not under the new Act. If this argument of Mr. Shishodia is to be accepted then there is no question of considering the provisions of new Wakf Act, which has come into force from 1-1-96. Under the proviso to Section 19 of the new Act, the Chairperson or the member can continue in the office until the appointment of his successor is notified in the Official Gazette, otherwise not. It is true that in the order dated 2-1-96 (Annex. P/1), it has been mentioned that by way of an interim arrangement, the term of the members of the Board and its Chairman is continued till the new Board is constituted but that does not mean that the Govt. is not empowered to make the appointment of an Administrator. No doubt, their appointment was extended till further orders, was not specifically mentioned but on completion of their term, it has to be presumed that their term was extended till further orders. It is not necessary that till the new Wakf Board is constituted, they should be continued.