The High Court · 2025

Order

Heard Sri K.Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Gandra Mohan Rao' learned Senior designate counsel representing Sri K' Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 on record, Sri lmran Khan, learned Additionat Advocate General appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 and Sri A.M. Qureshi, learned senior designated counsel appearing for Sri Mir Ibrahim Ali Kamil' learned counsel on record for Respondent No.3'

2. The Petitioner aoD d he Cou seekino Draver under: "...to issue a Writ of order preferably in the nature of Writ of Quo Warranto and consequently quash the impugned G.O.Ms.No.10, Minorities Welfare (Estt-II) Department dated 05.03.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent appointing the 1'r respondent as Member of Telangana State Waqf Board is wholly without power or jurisdiction and contrary to law and u nconstitu tion al and consequently quash the same as such and to pass such other order..." 4 3 Pe ti b h e 1()n d f t the averm 2 r the oetitioner in SU DDort of the resent lrUrft_geUfuSn jg 3S_F_r rttours: a) Petitioner is a Mlsl:nr and a prac:icing Advocate. Petitioner being interested in the well br ing and good administration of the Waof Board is a person interr sted in the waqf as deiined under. Section 3(k) cr the Waqf Act 1995 ii)

It is the specific case of the petitioner that Govern!.nent vlde G.O.Ms.No.9 datecl Og.O2.2O2Z issued notification for Reconstitution of Telangana State \ryaqF Board anc :lso notified the Election Schedule. Consequ€nt upon thc said (; O.Ms.lJo.9, the Government reconstituted the Waqf Boarcl vide G.O Ms.No.25 dated 30.04.2022. Vide the said G.O.. Governm,: rt instead of reconstituting re Telangana State Waqf Board by,) even members/ reconstituted it with ten members. The 1,r i spondent filed W.P.No,12368 of 2022 chailenging G.O.Ms.No.25 de -ed 30.04.2022 whereunder one M.Zakeer tJussa:;r lar.,id had b(), n cleclared as post of l"4embe: of Telangana Sta:e Waqf BoarC elected i'or the 5 under the category of Section 14(1) (b) (iii) of the Waqf Act, 1995 as Muslim Member of the Bar Council' iii) It is further the case of the t State Government had taken a decisiorl- and issued a Memo No.2872lEstt-III2O23 dated 07.LO.2023 communicating the decision to constitute the s/aqf Board with 11 members duly including the 1't respondent, Member of the Bar Council' under Section 14(lXbxiii) and aggrieved by the same petitioner filed W.P.No.2913B of 2023 and on the basis of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1tt respondent' 38 .P a is Co o ol 2O23 observed as under: "Learned Government Pleader for Minority Welfare takes notice for respondent No.1. Sri Abu Akram, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for respondent No.2. Sri K. Ravinder Reddy, learned Counsel offers vakalat on behalf of respondent No.3 and waives service of further notice' Sri Hari Haran, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to the impugned memo dated 07.10.2023 would contend that while the State Govemment is vested with the power under Section 14(1Xb) of The Waqf Act, 1995 (for short'the Act') to have one and not more th;n two members from -. :.;:5:,Elie-:-.--i 6 a' the electoral colleges be elected as members o, :he Waqf Board and that the State Government in iLs wisdom, issur:< G.O:Ms.No.9 dated 09,02.2022 whereby it has been decided to hav r one member from the Electoral college under Clause (iii) of Sectio.r 14(1Xb) of the Act i.e., member from State Bar Council. Therefore t is contended that since the existing member was already elected, th( appointment of 3ra respondent is invalid. Per ontra, Sri G. Mohan Rao, learned Senrc . Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent by drawing attention rr this Court to the impugned proceeding would submit that the abo,a proceeding is only an in principle decision of the Government to r€ ( )nstitute the board under the category (iii) of section 14(1Xb) of th: Act, and the same would become effective only upon issuance of 3overnment Order (G.O.) under Section 14(8) of the Act by susperseJ ng the earlier G.Os issued. Thus, it is contended that the impugned grr :ceeding does not confer any right on the 3'd respondent and the r ame is subject to issuance of G.O. by the State Government. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that : ince the impugned proceeding is onry a decisron of the Government, th r respondent No.3 would not claim any benefit of the same or discharr e any functions of a member unless and until G.O. in this regard is is; red by respondent No. 1 in accordance with law. The statements made by rearned senior cr,r nser on beharf of respondent No.3 is placed on record. Learned Government pleader the responder s while adopting the submission of the learned Senior Counsel worrl I further subrnits 7 that since the State is empowered to reconstitute the board, the authority would follow due process of law while giving effect to the in principle decision. In the light of the above submissions, this Court is of the view that the matter requires counters. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to file their counter in the matter. List after four weeks." iv) It is fu rther the case of the D ationer that the l"t s on ed th w.P. o.3478 of 2024 se r h Cou an an ekino orav er and in nm Drav er as under: tion is "To issue a Writ or Writs more appropriately a WNT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No.1 in not issuing the Govemment Order (G.O. ) as contemplated under Section 14(lxbxiii) of the WaK Act 1995 for the reconstitution of the Telangana State Wakf Board in pursuance to the Memo No.2g72lEstt- Il/2023 dated 07 .t0.2073 as illegal, void, ultra virus, unconstihrtional and violations of the provisions of Waqf Act 1995 and also in violation of principles of Natural Justice in the interest of justice and equity and consequently to direct the 1( resporrdent to issue the Government Order (G.O.) as contemplated under Section 14(1xb)(iii) of the Waqf Act 1995 for the constitution of the Telangana State Waqf Board in pursuance to the Memo No.287ZlEstt-[ /2023 dated 07.LO.2OZ3." 8 Interim Praver in I.A.No.1 of 2024 i! W.P.No.3478 of 2O24 as hereunder: "To direct the 1$ respondent to issue the 3overnment Order (G.O.) as contemplated under Section 14(1XbXi i of the WaK Act, 1995 for the constitution of the Telangana Sta e Wakf Board in pursuance to the Memo No.2872lEsft-II/2O23 lated 07.10.2023, pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the int,:r est of justice and equity." And this Court vide its order dated 09.02,2(! 4 oassed orders tn I.A.No. ot 2024 in W.P.No.3478 ot 2l) 14 observinq as under: "Notice before admission. Leamed Govemment Pleader for Sociai We i re takes notice on behalf of respondent No.1. Sri Abu Akam, learned Standing Counsel for WaK Board takes notice on behalf of respondent No.2. There shall be interim direction as prayed frr Post on 11.03.2024." v) It is further the case of the pet t oner that duly considering the interim orders of this Court c. ted 09.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.3478 of i( 24 Government issued G.O.Ms.tlo.10 dated 05.03.2024 rec )nstituting the Telangana State Waqf Board with eleventh memtr, r duly including 9 the 1st respondent i.e., Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, Advocate, High Court and Member of Bar Council as Member of Telangana State Waqf Board from the Bar Cor-rncil under category 1a (1) (b) (iii) of Waqf Act 1995, as amended in 2013. vi) The writ petition filed by the petitioner vide W.P,No.29138 of 2023 was therefore dismissed as infructuous vide order of this Court dated 19.03.2024 passed in W.p.No.2913B of 2023. Aggrieved by the same petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition. 4| PE USED T E REC RD (A) Order imouqned dated 05.O3.2O24 issued by the o a "GOVERNMENT OF TELANGANA ABSTRACT .Yjlolti.r Welfare Department - Reconstitution of Telangana State WaK Board under WaK Act, 1995 - Appointment of Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, Advocate, High Court of Telangana and Member of Bar Council as member of Telangana State Wakf Board from the Bar Council under the category 14 (1) (b) (iii) of Waqf Act, 1995 _ Notification - Orders - Issued. MTNORITTTES WELFARE (ESTT-rr) DEPARTMENT 10 G.O.Ms.No,lo Date j:05.03.2024. Rer < the following:-

1. WaqfAct, 1995 (ns amended, 2013) 2. G.O.Ms.No.25, Min. Wel (Eist-II) Dept., dl . 10.04.2022. 3. Govt. Memo. No. 2872lEsfr-Il I 2023, Dated : I 7. I 0. 2023. 4. G.O.Ms.No.4, Min. Wel. (Estt-II) Dept., dt: t5.02.2024. 5. Interim orders of the Hon'ble High Court ir L.A.No.1 of 2024 dt. L9.02.2024 in W.P.No.3478/2024. In the references 2d and 4h read above, Government have reconstituted Telangana State WaK Board, HyderiSad in exercise of the powers confened under Sub-Section (9) o' Section (i4) and Section (15) of the Waqf Act, 1995 (as amenc:d in 2013), and appointed Ten (10) Members out of which Six (ri Elected Members and Four (4) Nominated Members to the Telangan;r itate Waqf Board.

2. In the reference 3d read above, Governmer have reconstrtute the Board with Eleventh member duly appointing I ri M.A.K.Mukheed, Advocate and Council as Second member from 'l e category of Bar Council as per ffiion 14 (1) (b) (iii) of the \! rqf Act, 1995, as amended in 2013, as there were only two eligibl,: electors from that category to the Telangana State Waqf Board.

3. In the reference 4h read above, the Hor:le High Court in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.3478 of 2024 pray(:( to direct the 1n respondent (Secretary to Govt. M.W. Dept.) to is: r e the Government Order as contemplated under Section 14 (1) (b) (ii ) of the WaK Act, 1995 for the constitr.tion of the Telangana Stl e Wakf Board in pursuance to the Memo No.2872lEstt-II12023 c..07.10.2023. The Hon'ble High Court passed orders on L9.02.2024 .l at, "there shall be interim directions as prayed for".

4. Government after careful examination of the ratter and in view of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court 4th rearl above, hereby re- constitute the board with eleventh member duly i cluding Sri M.A.K. Mukheed Advocate of High Court and Member rf Bar Council as member of Telangana State Waqf Board from th,: Bar Council under Category 14 (1) (b) (iii) of WaK Act, 1995, as ame r ied in 2013. 11 NOTIFICATION "In exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-Section (9) of Section (14) and Section (15) of the WaK Act, 1995 (as amended in 2013), the'Governor of Telangana State hereby appoint Sri M.A.K. Muklrced Advocate of High Court and Member of Bar Council as member of Telangana State Waq Board from the Bar Council under Category 14 (1) (b) (iii) of the WaK Act, 1995, as amended in 2013." :

5. The Chief Executive Officer, Telangana State Waqf Board shall take immediate necessary action in the matter accordingly. (BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF TEI.ANGANA) SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT The Memo dated 07.1O .2023 issued bv the 2nd (B) SYED OMER JALEEL resDo dent is extracted hereunder:- "GOVERNMENT OF TELANGANA MINORmES WELFARE (ESTT-rr) DEPARTMENT Memo No,2872lEstt.U/ 2023 Dated:07.10.2023. Sub: Minorities Welfare Department - Reconstitution of Telangana State Waqf Board under Waqf Act, 1995 - Inclusion of Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, Advocate, High Court of Telangana as member of Telangana State Waqf Board as per 14 (lxb)(iii) of Waqf Act, 1995 - Reg. Ref: 1. G.O.Ms.No.25, Min.Wel (Estt.Ii) Dept., Dt.30.04'2022' Government have constituted the Telangana State Waqf Board vide G.O. Reference cited. .. .'j -],r,=:E;:!:,5:ia€i- L2 As per the Waof Act 1995, as amended irr 2013, section 14 (1) (b) (iii) provides for election of one and not n ( € than two Muslim members from the Bar Council Category i" if,.'ru"qi'a"ard. It was informed that there are only two f\au;lim membi,r;'Jitne sar Councit and during election becauseof a Tie, n. n4.ttli, al'resotveO by way of Toss and Sri Zakeer Hussain Javeei was aEU,e f .f.".0. ^ _- 9grurnTent being the competent authc .ity to decide the composition.of the board, it is decided to .onoiuil the uoara with erevenmembers dury incruding sri M.A.K. Nurneer niuo."t", Member of Bar Council as member of Telangana State wiil eolrd from the sar Councit under Category 14(1) (bxiii). ---rv -qlr'| vvurr . The Chief Executive Officer, Telangana St;rl : Waqf board shall take immediate necessary.aion in ttre m5[., *., iii,iv. c The ou ter tt a SYED OI\ ER ]ALEEL SECRETAR\' TO GOVERNMENT h of lr soondent No.1 1 r ! as und er:- "12. That, issuing of the impugned G.O., is withjn Waqf Board as contemplated under Section 14 of I as such there is no violation of any provisions of J and there are not at all any violation of Article 12, .r. Constitution of India, since there is no legal rigl- t accrued to the petitioner has been taken away. The dated 13.04.2022 does not bar the 2nd ie; reconstitution of the Waqf Board by adding Eleventlr defeat of the 1$ respondent does not disqualifu this r post of Member of the Waqf Board. the powers of the e Waqf Act, 1995, e Waqf Act, 1995 , 16 and 21 oF the ; which has been G.O.Ms.No.24 rondent for the 111) member, the :spondent for the 13

13. That, section 14(lxbxiii) of the Waqf Act, 1995 under this category there shall be Muslim Member of the Bar Council of the State one and not more than two members, as the State Government may think fit. In this matter there is Two (2) Bar Council Members, one is 1$ respondent and another is Mr. M. Zakeer Hussain Javid, as such there is no violation of the Section 14 of the Waqf Act. 1995 or any rights of the petitioner has been effected because he is not the Member of Bar Council and not the Member of the Electoral College of any category as mentioned in section 14 of the Waqf Act, 1995'

18. That, the petitioner failed to disclose the cause of action and the locus sbndito file this writ petition and the writ petition is a proxy litigation which has filed on behalf of the vested interested persons' as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost"' (D) Th counter affidavit led o beha lf of soond ent 2a n !ar r Nos 1 nd 14 u nder:- *7. In reply to Para No's.4 & 5 of the Writ Petitioner's Affidavit' it is true that Government vide G.o'Ms No.25, dated: 30'04'2022' appointment of Sri Zakir Hussain Javeed was notified from Bar Council as the Member of Waqf Board. It is submitted that as per Waqf Act 1995 Sec. 14 it is construed that the elected members shall not exceed more than 8 members and nominated members shall not exceed more than 5 members subject to availability of eligible candidates with the total numbers of 13 Members in a Board, out of which 1 Member shall be selected and appointed as Chairman of Telangana State Waqf :. - i_ i:|:-,!e.--:{1:rl 74 Board. Hyderabad and as per Waqf Act, 1995 1t e number of elected members of the board shall, at all times, be mo.t than the nominated members of the Board except as provided un( er Sub_section (3). Accordingly Government have accommodated Orrt more member from the Bar Council of Telangana and the said pet.s:n was declared as "Elected" under 14 (1) (b) (iii) of the Act. It s arso pertinent to mention here that in a previous precedent case (;( vernment have arso re-constituted the Telangana Shte Waqf Board rr th (11) Members in G.O.Ms.NO.No.9. Minorities Welfare (Estt-l) Department dt 23.02.2017.

72. I respectfully submit that the Gover r rent after careful examination of the mafter and in view of the o_r ers of this Hon,ble Court, re-constituted the board with eleventh mer tber duly including the 1st Respondent as member of Waqf Board fr m the Bar Council under Caregory l4(lxbxiii) of Waqf Act, 1995, ir: amended in 2013 and directed the Chief Executive Officer, Wirr f Board to take immediate necessary action in the matter in acco r ance with G.O. Ms. No.10 dated 05.03.2024',. This respondent have ,u!ly comptied the orders of the Hon,ble Court dated 09_02_2024 in I A.No.l of 2024 in W.P.No.3478 of 2024.

14. I respectfuly submit that the petitioner err: r to note that the Government is the competent authority to decide t te composition of the Board to include one mcre Member from the ]ar Council under Category 14(tXbxiii)of theWaqf Act, 1995.,, 15 (E) Theco nter affid vl t led onbe alf of res N r a d r "19. That, the person interested does not have any locus standi to question the impugned notification, there is no cause of action to the petitioner to file this writ petition, since he is not at ail the member of any electoral college defined in sectjon 14(1XbXD(iixiii)(iv) of the Wakf Act, 1995 and also not qualified to the category of section 1a(l)(c)(d)(e) of rhe Wald Act, 199s.

20. That, the petitioner failed to make out the contents in the writ petition that, there is any erement of writ of quo warranto or writ of prohibition. 21, That, the petitioner also failed to establish the contents of the writ petition that the Board Members are having any constitutional powers, statutory powers and responsibilities to maintain the writ of euo Warranto.

22. That, the petitioner failed to mention in the affidavit that, which provisions of.the wakf Act, lggs and rures made thereunder has been violated by the 2nd respondent, however during the course of hearing the petitioner relied on the Telangana State Wakf Rules, 2022 most particularly Rule 7 to 42 of the Telangana State Wakf Rules, 2022, in case the petitioner is relying in violations of any rule the writ petition is not maintainable. The p€titioner have to approach the Hon,ble Wakf Tribunal under Rule 7(A) of the Telangana State Wakf Rules, 2022. In case the arguments of the petitioner accepted that there as violations 16 of Telangana State lVakf Rules, 2022, there is an el ective alternative remedy, as such the w:'it petition is ntrt maintainab e as there is an effective alternative remedy.

23. That the Wal:f P.ules No. 7 to 42 of the Telcrlana State WaK Rules, 2022 is not applicable to the present c;tl e, since the 2d respondent exercised the power tinder section 14 >f the WaK Act, 1995 to compiete the reconstitution of the WaK Bo: rd appointed the 19t respondent as a Mernber cf the WaK Board t'l the erirent of 11 rnembers by exercising l-he powers conte,nplated ur 1er section 14(3) of the Wakf Act, 1995.

24. That, to sum up the matter petitioner does rrl t have any locus iandi and failed to prove the issue cf "Locus Stantli ' as mentioned in pa:-a supra anC the elements of the S.trit of Quo V/ rrranto ci' Writ of Prohibitirrn is lacking. The :ngredients of the caul;t of action is not mentioned and also failed to p!'ove that the 2nd r€s )ondent does not have arry powers to appoint the 1r respondent, ls such the writ petition rs iiabie to be dismissed." (F) The O rder dated

12.O3. 2024_ _-passed-jtr W.P.No.3478 of 2O24. in oarticular at oara 6 it is observed as under:

6. Taking into ccnslderation the ( lntents of the G.o.Ms.No.10 dated 05.03.2024, passed ir favour" of the petitiorler by the respondenl No.1 and dull considering the iact that the respondent tlc.1 directed the res )ondent l'1o.2 to 77 take immediate necessary action in the matter accordingly, this Court opines that the grievance of the petifioner as DUt forth in the present Writ petition No.347g of 2024 has been addressed by the respondents.,, F:;'--:-:-------- l (G) Th der d ted I o24 a W.P.No.2 913a of 20 23 is hereund er: ORDER: "When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the causeln the writ petition does not survive for adjudication. 2. Recording the said submission, this Writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.,, DI N D c D ISCUsslo N: 5 Na f e Th lea r ed riD .Lak mt simh , ADDE annq on beha lf of the Detitroner mainlv outs a u n b t ca se that: (i) Petitioner is a Muslim and a practicing Advocate and being interested in the well being and good administration of the Waqf Board is a person interested in the Waqf as designed under 18 Section 3 (k) of the WaqF Act, 1995 and hence pet lioner has locus to file the present writ petition. (ii) The appointment of the l't respondent i r the very same category to which one Mr. Zakir Hussain Javid had t een elected and Respondent No.1 defeated under Section 14 (1) (lt ( iii) is contrary to Law since there is no power vested with the Government to nominate the l't respondent under the very same:;r ction. (iii) The order impugned in the present rit petition i.e,, ^ G.O.Ms.No.10, Minorities Welfare (Estt-11) De1 artment d ated

05.03.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent app )inting the 1"t respondent is wholly without power of jurisdictiorr a nd violative of Articles 12, t4, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of In I (iv) The Government has no power to r( a. view its earlier decision made vide G.O.Ms,No.25 dated 30.O4.2022 (v) Section 14(1) (b) (iii) recognizes or y one tyPe of appointment i.e, by election, 2nd respondent has r of no power or Authority to issue any order under the elected cai rgory of Section 14 (1) (b) (iii) making any appointments. (vi) As per Telangana Waqf Rules 2022 d I ed 20.O7.2022, any person from the elected category can only be ;r rpointed. ( 19 (vii) Government has got power to appoint any member to the Waqf Board only when a vacaftclf--oc€tni==tls-to deeth; resignation etc., and not otherwise in the present case there is no such occasion and hence the impugned order is bad in law. (viii) Member Waqf Board is a statutory post and public post and the illegality in the appointment of Member of Waqf Board is amenable to judicial scrutiny. (ix) Respondent No.l rvho had been defeated in the election in the vear 2022 cannot be appointed in the year 2024, Government had misused its power and therefore, the appointment of the 1't respondent is bad in law. a rned n B sed on e u a nb alf s e ner eret res nt wri h u ubm ron the r lianc had EJ heA xC low: (1) (2) !!ytam Qadir v. Special Tribunal, reported in (2002) 1 SCC 33, para 38. N Kannadasan v. Ajo Khose and others (2009) 7 SCC 1 Paras 109, 723,I25, L29, L3t to 136, tOZ, tOZ. 20 (3) Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odis:i v. Dhobei sahoo and others (2014) 1 SCC 161 pel)s'. 17,19,20, 2L, 22,23, 47, 5t. (4) Anirudh Kumar v. Municipal Corporation rf Delhi and others: (2015) 7 SCC 799: paras 26, 2) , 40. (5) Gambhirdan K Gandhvi v. State of Gtr- rrat: (2022) 5 SCC 179 paras: 10.3, 15, 16 to [a,49, !1. (6) Professor Syed Haider l-lassan Kazimi arrr ors v. State of Vy'est Bengal: 2024 SCC Online Cal ))3'. paras 2,9, 10, 11, t4,15,16, 1.9,21 , ?.2,23,29, :it to 38,41,42, 52, 53 to 55,71,72.

6. The learned Senior desiqnate counsel Sri J iandra Mohan Rao a DDearan on behalf of the 1't res nonde C t mainlv nuts o forth the followi a submissro ns:- (i) The petitioner f3iled to explarn the caus I of action and petitionert locus standi in filing the present writ per i ion. (ii) The writ petition is a proxy litigation f I :d on behelf of vested interested persons anci hence needs to be di; nissed. (iii) The present writ petition seekin I issuance of Quo-warranto is not rnaintainable for two reasons: (1) The appointment of Board Member ; not the office of profit. (2) Board t4ember dces not have a r r official public duties and si,atutory responsibiliiirl 2t (iv) State Government is having ample powers to constitute/reconstitute the Waqf Board under Section 13 and 14 of the Waqf Act 1995, and hence the issuance of the impugned G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 05.03'2024 issued by the 2nd respondent is within the powers of the Waqf Board as contemplated under Section 14 of the Waqf Act, 1995 as such there is no violation of any provisions of the Waqf Act 1995 nor violation of Articles L2' 14' t6 " and 21 of the Constitution of India as alleged by the petitioner and h.gnce the present writ petition needs to be dismissed in limini' (v) No legal rights had been accrued to the petitioner which . had been taken away by the respondents hence no Writ of Quo warranto lies and therefore the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed since there is no infringement of petitioner's rights by the respondents herein. (vi) The defeat of the 1't respondent does not disqualify the 1tt respondent for the post of Member of the Waqf Board' (vii) The G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 13'04'2022 does not bar the 2nd respondent for the reconstitution of the Waqf Board by adding Eleventh ( 11th Member). (viii) There is no violation of Section 14 rf the Waqf A.ct, 1995 as alleged by the petitioner. (ix) Petitioner has no locus since petit i )ner is not the member of Bar Council nor the member of the E r ctoral College of any category as mentioned in Section 14 of the W I 1f Act, 1995. (x) The policy decision of the State cove.r ment cannot be interfered on the flirnsy and false grounds raised ry the petitioner when the petitioner is not even an aggrieved persc L (xi) The Judgments relied upon by the earned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner are relatec to the otiice of profit and hence the said case Lams are not appli(., ble to the facts of the present case. u Ba sed on e id ub tsst ns the ..1 earned Senior u o t o be alf st resDond t s t writ tit I rn and olaced n u m nts of r I Apex Co l"t re tn u on en 'sc e;e. 1) 2006 (11) SCC pageT3t (paras 50, 51 ar: j2 2) AiR 1965 SCC page 491 3) AJR 1996 (AP) 10 - 4) (2021) 14 SCC 211 23 7 ear e A dit vocate Gene n tYlohd r a nlv uts forth the foilow r tno u bm isslons (i) Petitioner is not an interested person or aggrieved person. (ii) Government has the power or authority to nominate one and not more than two members from the category of Muslim members of the Bar Council of the concerned State or Union Jerritory. {i'ri) lQrcvemtnent had accommodated one more member from the Bar councir of relangana and the said person was declared ..Erected,, under 14 (lxb)(iii) of the Act and hence there is no illegaffi in the order impugned in the present writ petition' (iv) - Gqvernment is the competent authority to decide the composition of the Board to include one more member from the Bar Council under Categorv 1q (r)(b)(ili) of the Waqf Act' 1995' (v) Petitioner has no locus and the writ petition is devoid of merits. ri+...ail**€i*.iii5;{i.: 24 a d lsl o n r ed i t the wrat petition 8 t T I n t e followi n U b u a ,t'tn on beh lf of rmil matn v D Ati I (i) (ii) Petitioner has no locus to file the pr€: ent writ petition. The present writ of euo_warranto s not maintainable stnce the appointment of Board Member is not and the Board Member does not have any offici; statutory responsibilities. t re office of profit, ,l public duties and rights, (iii) There is no violation of any fu r iamentat statutory rights and any other legal rights of the p< trtioner (iv) The Board is a Body Corporate t- I ving perpetual succession under Section 13 (3) of rhe Waqf Act, 1))5. (v) As per the Judgment of the Division Ber ch of this Court reported in 1996 (1) ALT 236 in the matter of yr,;uf Moulana Mohd. lamaluddin Deccani, it is clear that i poiicy decision taken by the Government cannot be challenged unr r r Article 226 of eureshi Vs. 25 theConstitutionoflndiaonthisgroundalcnethepresentwrit petition is liable to be dismissed' (vi) Petitioner during the course of arguments through his counsel complained violation of Telangana State Waqf Rules 2022' more particularly Rule 7 to 42 of the Telangana State Waqf Rules 2022andthereforetheremedyavailabletothepetitioneristo approach the Waqf Tribunal under Rule 7(A) of the Telangana State Waqf Rules 2022. B s b assr ns he le ne h s n t m e n co CLUSION: 9 1 1 95 t e ra d re nd "14. ComPosition of Board.- G) The Board for a State and the National Capital Territory of Delhi shall consist of- (a) a ChairPerson; (b) one and not more than two members' as the State Government may think fit, to be elected from each of the electoral colleges consisting of - 26 (i) Muslim Members of parliament frc the case may be, the National Capital Ter.ritnr (ii) Muslim Members cf the State Legis (iii) Muslim members of the Bar Courc State or Union tenitory: provided that ii- Muslim member of the Bar Council of a territory the State Government or tle administration, as the case may be, may nc l,luslim advocate from that State cr the Uniolr (iv) n:utawallis of the auqaf having a r n the State or, as 1of Delhi; ature; I of the ccncerned case there is no Itate or a r.,nion Union terr;i:ory ninate eny serlor lerritory, aod .:nnUal !ncO,-''le ol' rupees one lakh and above. Exoianation I.-For the removal of dorrl ts, it is hereby declareC that the nlembcrs frorn categories r rentionsd in sub_ clauscs (i) to (iv), shall be elected from tl-€ electoret coilege constituted for each ctegory. Exolan tion u.-For the removal of dou )ts it is hereby declared that in case a Muslim member ceasr)r to be a Mernber of Parliament from the State or National C. tital Te.r,tory oF Delhj as referred to in sub-cleuse (i) of clause (b) c:. ceases to be a Member of the State Legislative Assrrr rbly as required under sub-clause (ii) of clause (b), such r e..nber shall be deerncd to ha'.,e vacated the office of the me r ber of the tioard for the State or Nationel Capita! Territory of t:lh!. as the case may be, from the date from whlch such memtx r ceased to be a Member of Parliament from the State Nation: I Capital Terrrtory of Deihi, or a Member cf the State Legislative , ssembly, as the case may be; 27 (c) one person from amongst Muslims' who has professional experience in lswn planning or business managemen! social work, finance or revenueT agriculture and teveloptnent' activities, to be nominated by the State Government; G+one perssh each from amongst Muslims' to be nominated by the State Government from recognised schotars in Sunni Islamic TheologY; G) one person from amongst Muslims' to be nominated by the State Government from amongst the officers of the.State Government not below the rank of loint Secretary to the State Govemmentl (1A) No Minister of the Central Government or' as the case may membei of theBoard: Provided that in case of a Union territory' the Board shall consist of not less than five and not more than seven members to be appointed by the Central Government fromcategoriesspecifiedundersub-clauses(i)to(iv)ofclause (b) or clauses{fl-E-(b) in su b-section (1):Provided further Jffie Providedalsothatineverycasewherethesystemofmutawalli exists, there shall be one mutawalli as the member of the Board shall be women: Board. (2) Election of the members specified in clause (b) of sub- section (1) shall be held in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of a single transferable ' vote, in such manner as may be prescribed: t .:;*.4i,,i11;;i..- 28 Further the State Provided that where the number of Muslim Members of Parliament. the State Legislature or the ;tate Bar Council, as the case may be, is only one, such Mus im Member shall be declared to have been elected on the Bc ird: provided that where there are no Muslim Merr rers in any of the categories mentioned in sub_clauses (i) tc (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section (l) the ex_Muslim Members ot. )arliament, Legislature or ex_member of the State Bar Council, u, ,nu .ur. may be, shall constitute the electoral collery, . (3) Nohvithstanding anything contained ir this section, where the State Government is satisfied, for reas: rs to be recorded in writing, that it is not reasonably practic. t le to constitute an electoral college for any of the categorie; mentioned in sub_ clauses (i) to (iii) of clause (b) of sub_str tion (1). the State Government may nominate such persons as he memberc of the Board as it deems fit. (1) The number of elected mernbers of th: Board shafl, at all times, be more than the nominated merl Ers of the Board except as provided uncler sub_section (3).* ,, r * * (6 ) In determining the number of Shia r rembers or Sunni members of the Board, the State Governmem shall have regard to the number and value of Shia auqaf and iunni auqaf to be adm;nistered by the Board and appointmerrl of the members shalr be made, so far as may be, in acc,r dance with such determination.fx*x* fQ) Whenever the Board is members or the Board,,..,",l:::tii*',jiljlll' rl;,T"" 29 purpose shall elect cne from amongst themselves as the Chairperson of the Board. (!) The members of tfe Soardthall be appointed by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette."

10. A bare perusal of the first proviso (referred to and extracted above) indicates the fact that there are twin conditions, to be eligible to be a Member of the Board, namely, (1) The candidate must be from the Muslim Community and (2) The candidate must hold a position either as a Member of Parliament, or a member of the State Legislative Assembly. or a member of the Bar Council. section 14 of rhe1 qqs A.f which d ea comoosition of Board reads as under: (1) The Board for a State and the Nationat Capital Territory of Delhi shall consist of (a) a Chair person, (b) one and not more than two members, as the State Government may think fit, to be elected from each of the etectoral colleges consisting oJ, 30 (i) Muslim Members of Parliamerr t from the State or person as the case may be, the National Capital Territory of Dclhi, (ii) Muslim Members of the State Lerr (iii) Muslim Members of the Bar Cc islatu re, uncil of the concerned State or Union Territory.

11. A bare perusal of the interim orders of this Court dated

09.02.2024 passed in W.P.No.347.8 of 2O24, indic.i tes that this Court vide the said order directed the first responder I to issue the Government Order as contemplated under Section 14 .1) (b) (iii) of the Waqf Act, 1995 for the constitution of the Telang;r ra State Waqf Bcard in pursuance to the Memo No.2872lEstt-:. /2023 Cated

07.70.2023. A bare perusal of the t4emo dated 07.10.20:t, (referred to and extracted above) indicates that Government la d constituted the Telangana State Waqf Board vide G.O.Ms.No, 25 Minorities Welfare (Estt.II) Department dated 30.04.2O22. Du-i 1g Election in the year 2022 there were only trvo Muslrm memb: 's of the 8ar Council, and there was a tie and lrence the matter lt; s resclved by way of Toss and the 1't respondent lvas defeaterl and one Sri ) 31 Zakeer Hussain Javid was declared elected, and since Government is the competent Authority to declde the it was decided to constitute the Boaril urith eleven members duly including Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, Advocate, Member of Bar Council as Member of Telangana State Waqf Board from the Bar Council under category 14(1) (b) (iii) and accordingly the Chief Executive Officer, Telangana State Waqf Board was directed to take immediate necessary action in the matter and in consequence thereto the present impugned G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 05.03.2O24 had been lssued by the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition primarily contending that Government has no power to review its earlier decision made vide G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 30.04.2O22 along with few other pleas.

12. In so far as the locus of the petitioner is concerned though a specific plea is taken by the respondents that petitioner has no locus since petitioner is not an aggrieved or interested person since the petitioner is not the Member of Bar Council and not the member of the Electoral College of any category-.Aj=m,entioned in Section 14 of the Waqf Act, 1995, but since the pg!I9!gr specifically contends that petitioner is a person interested under Section 3(k) of the 32 Waqf Act, 1995 this Court opines that petitioner has locus to file the present writ petition. Sectio n 3(k) of Waof Act. 1995 is extracl d hereunder: :a "Under Section 3(k) "person interested in a vaqf,, means any person who is entitled to receive any pecuniary or c .her benefits from the waqf and includes- (i) any person who has a right to offer prayer c. to perform any religious rite in a mosque. idgah, imambara, rargah, khanqah, peerkhana and karbala, maqbara, graveyard or il y other religious instituticn connected with the waqf or to participat(, n any religious or charitable institution under the rtaqf; (ii) the waqif and any descendant of the waqif and tl" : mutawalli;,,

13. Takino into consideration Section 3(k)([ of the V,laqf Act, 1995 (referred to and extracted above) ,;l ris Court is of the firm ooinlon that Detiti nertsao rson i rteres d and s locu g n of the Waof Board, In so far as the merits of the present case are cOncerneC it iS the specific case of the petitioner that as per Telan,; rna yy'aqf Rules 2022 dated 20.07.2022 only one person from the : ected category can only be appointed but however in the preserl case if in the year 2022, one Sri Zakeer Hussain lavid was de< I tred elected in 33 the year 2025 vide the impugned G.O.Ms.No.1O dated 05'03'2024 issued by the 2nd respondent, the lst respondent is appointed as Member of Telangana Waqf Board underplected categoly,and the same is permissible under law. L4. This 199 Wa f Sta 1 e f s e e m c v ment u b of the electoral colleoes consistino of; (i) Muslim Members of Parliament fpEr the -SJale or as the case may be (the National Capital Territory of Delhi), (il) Muslim Members of the State Legislature, ( iii) Muslim Members of the Bar Council of the concerned State or Union TerritorY. -:#

15. In the present case one Muslim Member had been declared elected vide G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 30.04'2022 under Section 14(1)(b)(iii) under Elected category and the Government vide the impugned G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 05.O8I(I24'duly consid€ring interim orders of this Court dated 09.O2'2024 in I'A'No'L of 2024 in W.P.No.3478 of 2024 appointed the 1s respondent, i'e', Sri M'A'K' .-\ 34 Mukheed, Advocate and Member Terangana Sta:r Bar councir as Second Member of the Bar Council of Telangana leclaring the 1rr respondent as elected as Member of the Telanc:na State Waqf Board under Section 14 (1Xb)(ii,) as per polic,r decision of the State Government. This Court opines that tir I same is not permissible as per Section 14(1Xb) of the Waqf Act 1995.

16. This Court opines that as per Section L4(1) not more than two members as the State Governrr t could be elected from the Muslim Members oi. the E,i concerned State or Union Territory. In the present as borne on record there had been no election (( year 2025 and this Court can oniy dra\ry an inte appointment of the 1't respondent by the 2nd res under elected category but on nomination b3sis. ib)(iii) one and nt may think fit r Council of the :ase aCmittedly nducted in the -ence that the )ondent is not

17. This Court also takes note of the fact t lat Waqf Act 1995 does not provide for appointrnent of ,vr, rmber of Bar Counci! of Telangana under catego rV la (.1) (tr of the Waqf Act, 1995, on nomination basis and Act on ly stipulates election from each of thc electoral colleges cor sisting of (i) 35 Muslim Members of parriament from the state or as-the case. l may be (The Nationa! Capita! Territory of Dethi), (ii) Muslim members of the State Legislature, (iii) Mustim members of the Bar Council of the concerned State or Union territory-

18. In so far as the ptea of the respondents, that the present writ petition seeking ..Writ of euo_warranto,, is not maintainable on the ground that the appointment of Board Member is not the Office of profit, and the Board Member does not have any official pubilc duties and statutory responsibalitaes, this Court opines that the nature of functions exercised by the Waqf Board and ats members is a public duty but touches the rights oIJfp_ggp!,_"_,I .19t "_ntv general and therefore thtr*g!4 opines that a member of_the__-- _ Waqf Board holds a public office and as such the order impugned is amenable to Judicial Scrutiny.

19. This Court opines that the plea in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 at para ,2, (referred to and extracted above) that Government had accommodated one more member from the Bar Council of Tetangana and the 36 said person i,e., the 1"t respondent was "Elected" under Section 14(lXb)(iii) of the \At, is not tenabte and is rejected since th declared as rqf Act, 1995 e impugned G.O.Ms.No.1O dated O5.O3.2024 issued by the :l 'd respondent appointing the l"t respondent as the membet of Telangana State Waqf Board from the Bar Council unde t (lxb)(iii) of the Waqf Act, 1995, as amendc category 14 d in 2O13 is contrary to the statute and the relevant provis i rns of Law of the Waqf Act, 1995 and the Rules made thereur d er.

20. This Court also takes note of the speci 'i : plea of the petationer that as per Telangana Waqf Rule : 2022 dated 2O,O7.2fJ22 only one person from the electerl category can only be appointed and in the present case in I he year 2022 one person by name Sri M.Zakeer Hussain -Ia ,id had been appointed under the elected category an(l the present impugned G.O.Ms.No.1O ciated O5.03.2O24 isst ed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the l't respondent rrr minating the 1't respondent to the Telangana State Waqf B ) rrd under the elected category is in contravention of the sit d waqf Rules dated 2O.O7.2022, 37

21. In so far as retiance placed on the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2OO6 (11) SCC l3t by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1"t respondent on the point that this Court cannot sit in Judgment over the wisdom of the Government in the choice of the person to be appointed so long as the person chosen possesses prescribed qualification and is otherwise eligible for appointment this Court opines that the said Judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case, since in the present case the appointment of the l.t respondent vide the impugned G.O., of the 2"d respondent dated O5.O3.2024 as contrary to the statutory provisions of the Waqf Act 1995 and the Rules made thereunder.

22. It is ettled lawwh en a statute describes or reou res a articu lar manner it should be donein be done in a D that mann er or notat a il. A) (M.Shankara Reddy Vs...Amara Ramakoteswara Rao reported in (2017) SCC Online Hyd a26). 38 B) The D rvrston Bench of ADex ourt in its iudqment dated o4.to.2,J2l an SuDertec hL .. Vs. ! merald Court Owner Resident Welfare Associati on and I )rs., reoorted in2 21 SCC Online SC 422, referring :o Taylor Vs. Taylor, 1875 (1) Ch D42q Nazir Ahrr ed Vs. King Emperor reported in (1936) L.R.63 Inr Ap372 and Parbhani Transport Co-operative Societ) Ltd., Vs. The Regional Transpoft Authority, Aurang,r rad & Ors., reported in AIR 1960 SC gol at para 1l observed as under : "It is that where a power is given to dc r certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in th r way or not at all and that other methods of performance r re necessarily forbidden. Hence when a statute requircs a par icuiar thing to be done in a particular manner, it must b: done in that manner cr not at all and other methods of pe .formance are necessarily forbidden, This Court too, as adcp:r d this maxim. This rule orovides that an exrrress lv laid rI rwn mode of lv imolies a rl ohi_bj!.!qn on somethi nq necess doins it in any other u.rav." 39

23. This Couft opines that the impugned G.O.No.1O dated O5..O3.2O24; issued by the 2"d resiondent appointing thG 1* respondent as Member Telangana State waqf Board is contrary to the legislature's intent defeating the apparent intent of the Legislature by resorting to a procedure not prescribed by the relevant statute and the Rules made thereunder.

24. Thas Court opines that the procedure laid down under , {] the statute as per Section 14 (1) (b) (iai) Waqf Act 1995 has to be necessarily followed since an expressly laid down mode of doing something necessarily implies a prohibition on doing it in any other way. -'---:-=-::-

25. The Apex Court in its recent Judgment reported in 2O25 Live Law (SC) 454 dated 22.04.2O25 in 'MD.FIROZ AHMAD KHALID VS. THE STATE OF ]VIANIPUR ANO OTHERS", At PATA 17 observed as under: '17. At this juncture, we take note of Lord Denning's words of wisdom in Seaford Court Estates Ld. v. Asher [(1949) 2 K.B. 481] -3,-- "...when a defect appears a judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the drafuman. He must set to work on the constructive 40 task of Civil Appeat No(s). 3797 e.3l9} of 2OZ5 .t. intention of Parliament, and he must do this r Ianguage oF the statute, but also from a consid€r conditions which gave rise to it, and of the mi:r passed to remedy, and then he must supplement J as to give "force and life., to the intention of the k < clearly laid dorvn by the resolution of the judges in I it is the safest guide today. Good practical advice c given about the sarne time by plcwden in his secorc Studd. Put into homely metaphor it is this: A judge the question: If the makers of the Act had them:,r this ruck in the texture of it, how would they have ;l He must then do as they would have done. A judge material of which it is woven, but he can and s I creases. " of 25 finding the rt only from the rtion of the social rief which it was e written word sc islature. That was eydon's case, and r the subject was volume Eyston v. hould ask himself lves conte across -aightened it out? nust not alter the ru!d iron out the

26. This Court opines that the order arr G.O.Ms.t{o.tO dated 05.O3.2024 passed respondent is contrary to the provisions ol respondent has to necessarily examine its,J vide the impugned c.O.Ms.No.lO Minorities Wr: Department dated 05.03.2O24 passed by the ;l and take appropriate action accordingly l Cecision in accordance to the relevant provisio r pugned vide by the znd Law and 2"d :cision rnade fare (Estt-II) d respondent :viewing its t Gf the Vrraqf ( 4L Act 1995 and the releyant Rutes made thereunder and pass appropria- te- gICerS. _

27. Takino into consideration: (A) rne atOiesaft:ffiicumstances of the case, (B) The averments made in the counter affidavit fited on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 3, (C) The submissions made by the learned appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, cou nsel lea rned (D) The interim Orders of this Court dated 09.O2.2O24 passed in I.A.No.1 ot 2O24 in W.p.No.3478 ol 2024 (referred to and extractad a_bo,!re)._ (E) T-he.=#f:4#F4"*==I203.2o24 .pasFed i&------..:- W.P.No.3478 ol 2024 (referred to and extracted above), (F) . Tha jlrde.r-dat€d tt.LO.ZO2g passed in W.P.No.29138 of 2Oj23 (referred to and extracted above), (G) The Order dated L9.O3,ZO24 passed in W.P.No.29138 of 2O23 (referred to and extracted above), 42 (H) Section 14(1)(b)(iii) of the Waqf /,ct 1995, and Section 3(k) of the Waqf Act, 1995 (ret,rrred to and extracted a bove), (I) The Judgments relied upon by the le rrned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, (J) The view and observations of the , \pex Court in the Judgments referred to and extracted abr ve and again enlisted below: i) 2006 (11) SCC 731 ii) (2017) SCC Online Hyd 426) iii) 2021 SCC Online SC 3422 iv) 2O25 Live Law (SC) 454 dated 22.04,ir-125, Taking into consideration the fact that UI rqf Board has served important functions to discharge for effective implementation of the purposes of the statut€ and involves the rights of the public in general and further n view of the fact that thc entire administration and finance s of the Waqf properties in the state are under the direct : upervision of the Board of Waqf, the present Writ Petition i; disposed off directing the 2nd respondent to re-examine its decision 43 appoanting the 1"t respondent as Member of Telangana State Waqf Board vide G.O.Ms.No.10, Minorities Welfare (Estt-U) dated O5.O3,2O24 and take appropriate action as per the relevant provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995 and the Rules made thereunder, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in the Judgments referred to and extracted above, and also the observations in the present Judgment in the interest of justice and initiate appropriate action accordingly. However there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, lf any pending, in this writ petition shall stand closed. II .M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ISTANT REG ISTRA I //TRUE COPY// One fair coPY to the HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SU (For His LordshiP's Kind Perus al) SECTION OFFICER PALLI NANDA ',. ,n" secretary to Government of Telangana' secretary to Government of ' i;ir;s";;;, l,iinotiti.silJrare o".enf 1 iovern ment of re I ans a n a' , ?f; :tH?L*3l:f: Hi":?:+: :ilJffi :siiq waqf Boa rd H a1 House ' g'aziai lvlanzil, Nampally, Hyderabad 500001 ' 3 11 L,R. CoPies. 4. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia' Ministry of Law' Justice and Company 5 The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library' High Court 6 Two Cc's to novoL"nfE GENERAL' High Court for the State of Telangana at z ol,"""cc t" dn x ursHrul NARASIMHA, Advocate toqqgl .^. Advocate IoPUcl 8 one cc to sRl xniiiA rinvilloEB -BE-PDL g one CC to SRI H'flri'irinniir-rt'r nu KAMIL'Advocate (oPUC) O io o"" cc io snr IMRAN KHAN, Advocate (OPUC) Buildings, HYderabad' Affairs, New Delhi. Hyderabad (OUT) 1 1. Two CD Copies SA AQ I r-L L) 96 i.,l fti5 * HIGH COURT DATED:09/0612025 4 ;

4. ,* ;. oRoeR WP.No.15769 ot 2024 +

4. q DISPOSING OF THE W.P THOUT COSTS. .f I \\