Writ Petition No. 30997 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14384 WP No. 30997 of 2024 C/W WP No. 29380 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 30997 OF 2024 (GM-WAKF) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 29380 OF 2024 (GM-WAKF) IN WP No. 30997/2024 BETWEEN: 1. RIYAZ AHMED @ MATEEN S/O LATE ABDUL MALIK AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO.96, HKP COMPOUND SHIVAJINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 051. 2. M.SADIQ ALI S/O LATE MOHAMMED ALI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS NO.6, E.NO. 11TH STREET HKP ROAD CROSS SHIVAJINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 051. 3. M.RAFEEQ AHMED Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka S/O LATE M.A.KALAQ AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS NO. 48/3, S.H. ROAD B.STREET, BROADWAY ROAD SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 051. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14384 WP No. 30997 of 2024 C/W WP No. 29380 of 2024 4. NAUSHAD ANJUM S/O LATE FAZALUR REHMAN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS NO.43/3, S.H.ROAD, B.STREET SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 051. 5. EJAZ AHMED S/O LATE ABDUL JABBAR AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS NO.990, HBR LAYOUT, 3RD CROSS BENGALURU – 560 045. 6. SYED SADIQ PASHA S/O LATE BASHEER AHMED AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS NO.1/38, I CROSS, 3RD MAIN ROAD BISMILLA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 029.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI VEERENDRA SHARMA R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DIVISION BENGALURU AND ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER FOR ELECTION OF KARNATAKA BOARD OF AUQAF 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, K.H. ROAD SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. 2. KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQAF REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU - 560 052. …PETITIONERS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14384 WP No. 30997 of 2024 C/W WP No. 29380 of 2024 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MINORITY AFFAIRS HAJ AND WAKF, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W., SRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R3; SRI VEERESH R. BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. SWATHI ASHOK, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE REVISED FINAL ELECTORAL LIST OF MUTAWALLIS OF WAKLF INSTITUTIONS PREPARED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT WHICH IS PUBLISHED ON 22/10/2024 NO. 75/2024-25 WHICH IS ANNEXED AS ANNX-A TO THE PETITION AND ETC., IN WP NO. 29380/2024 BETWEEN: MR. MOHAMMED SADATHULLA S/O MOHAMMED SANAULLA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NOORAIN NAUSHEEN MANSION 4TH CROSS, TIPPU NAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA KARNATAKA – 577 205. (BY SRI VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI CHAND PASHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DIVISION BENGALURU AND ELECTROL ...PETITIONER - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14384 WP No. 30997 of 2024 C/W WP No. 29380 of 2024 REGISTRATION OFFICER FOR ELECTION OF KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAQF 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027. 2. KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQAF HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 6 CUNNIGHAM RAOD BENGALURU - 560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 3. SRI SYED MUHAMMAD ALI AL HUSSAINI S/O SYED SHAH KHUSRO HUSSAINI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NEAR KBN DARGAH KALABURAGI TOWN, KARNATAKA – 585 104. 4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MINORITY WELFARE AND WAKFS VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. (BY SRI K.SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W., SRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1; SRI P.USMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2; ...RESPONDENTS - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14384 WP No. 30997 of 2024 C/W WP No. 29380 of 2024 SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI MAHAMOOD PATEL, ADVOCATE FOR R3) IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE THIS W.P. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE REVISED FINAL ELECTORAL ROLL DTD. 22.10.2024 PUBLISHED BY THE R-1 AT ANNX-A IN SO FAR AS INCLUSION OF R-3 IS CONCERNED. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner in W.P.No.29380/2024, is before this Court seeking the following prayer: “a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Revised Final Electoral Roll dated 22.10.2024 published by the Respondent No.1 at Annexure A in so far as inclusion of Respondent No.3 is concerned. b. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and declare that the inclusion of the Respondent No.3 in the Revised Final Electoral Roll dated 22.10.2024 is bad in law and illegal. c. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent no 1 to delete the name of the Respondent No. 3 from the Revised Final Electoral Roll dated 22.10.2024 at Sl No. 864. d. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or direction to quashing the declaration of Result dated 21.11.2024 issued under FORM NO.36 at serial i.e. NO.2, declaring that the respondent NO.3 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14384 WP No. 30997 of 2024 C/W WP No. 29380 of 2024 Sri.Syed Muhammad Ali Al Hussaini elected to fill the seat from the Mutawallies Electoral College, vide ANNEXURE-F. e. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or direction to quashing the notification dated 20.01.2025 bearing NO.MWD-WES/56/2024 issued by the respondent Government in exercise of powers conferred under section 14(9) of Wakf Act appointing the respondent NO.3 as member of Karnataka State Board of Wakf at item NO.7 of the notification in so is concerned, vide far as Respondent NO.3 ANNEXURE-D. Consequently, declare the nomination and election of Respondent No. 3 is unconstitutional, illegal and in violation of the order of this Hon'ble Court in WP No. 27649/2024. that f. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction quashing the proceedings dated 15.03.2025, bearing NO. Chunavane/vi. va/116/2024-25 issued by the respondent NO.1 Regional Commissioner notifying that the respondent NO.3 unanimously elected as Chairman/president of Karnataka State Board of Wakf, vide ANNEXURE-H. g. Pass such other and further orders as may be necessary in the interest of justice.” The petitioners in W.P.No.30997/2024, are before this Court seeking the following prayer: “1. Quash the revised final electoral list of Mutawallis of Wakf institutions prepared by the First Respondent which is published on 22.10.2024 No.75/2024-25, which is annexed as Annexure A to the Petition; 2. Quash the elections, held on 19-11-2024, as per Annexure – H. 3. Direct the Respondents to prepare a fresh electoral list of eligible voters as per Form 20 prescribed by Rule 12 of the Karnataka State Wakf Rules 2017; - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14384 WP No. 30997 of 2024 C/W WP No. 29380 of 2024 4. Direct the Respondents to hold elections on the basis of the fresh electoral list by following all procedures laid down in the Election Conduct Rules; 5. Any other Order, Writ or Direction as in the circumstances of the above matter this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard Sri Vivek S. Reddy, learned senior counsel for Sri Chand Pasha, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.29380/2024, Sri Veerendra Sharma R., learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.30997/2024, Sri Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Advocate General along with Sri Mohammed Jaffar Shah, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 in W.P.No.29380/2024 and respondent No.3 in W.P.No.30997/2024, Sri P. Usman, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned senior counsel for Sri Mahamood Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.3 in W.P.No.29380/2024, Sri Veeresh R. Budihal, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Smt. Swathi Ashok, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in W.P.No.30997/2024. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14384 WP No. 30997 of 2024 C/W WP No. 29380 of 2024 3. The petitioners who claim to be voters / Mutawallis are calling in question the election conducted to the Waqf Board of a particular constituency or the Electoral College of Mutawallis. 4. Sri Vivek S. Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners would project two illegalities in the entire process of election. The petitioners were initially before this Court calling in question the inclusion of the name of the 3rd respondent into the final electoral roll for the elections to the member of the Waqf Board from the Electoral College of Muttawallis. Pursuant to the elections, respondent No.3 was elected as the member of the Board and his further appoint as Chairman to the Karnataka Waqf Board, the prayer is amended to raise a challenge to the said subsequent development of the 3rd respondent being appointed as a Chairman. Taking this Court through the order passed by a coordinate bench in W.P.No.27649/2024 c/w. W.P.No.26367/2024, disposed on 15.10.2024, he would submit that the coordinate bench had issued a direction that Form 20 of Rule 12(1) of the Karnataka Waqf Rules, 2017, was to be scrupulously followed. The said W.P.No.27649/2024 was a petition preferred by the Waqf Board themselves in the wake - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14384 WP No. 30997 of 2024 C/W WP No. 29380 of 2024 of certain circumstances of not following the procedure during elections. 5. Post the said order, elections happen and the petitioners are said to be the voters from the Electoral College. Respondent No.3 is said to have elected as a member of the Board from the Mutawallis. Pursuant to the election, a meeting takes place to the post of Chairman of the Waqf Board. Respondent No.3 is elected as the Chairman and the petitioners are wanting to find fault with the election conducted to the post of the Chairman, on the ground that the quorum that was required on the date of the election conducted for the post of Chairman of the Waqf Board was not in place. 6. According to Sri Vivek S. Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners would submit that the quorum ought to have been 50% of 11 members. On the said date, only 5 members were there and therefore, it did not form a quorum. The Election Returning Officer observes in the order that the quorum in the scheme of administration is, the presence of 1/3rd members. Therefore, the quorum would be 4 and there - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:14384 WP No. 30997 of 2024 C/W WP No. 29380 of 2024 were 5 members on the said date and the Chairman could be elected. 7. Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, learning senior counsel for the respondents would take this Court through an order passed by the coordinate bench in identical circumstance, where the coordinate bench had relegated those persons to challenge those actions of the election, to the Waqf Tribunal invoking the provisions in terms of Section 83(1) and (2) of the Waqf Act 1995. The coordinate bench has held as follows: “In all these writ petitions the essential dispute relates to the Notification dated 08.10.2021whereby the process for electing the Chairman of the Board has commenced and that the election is scheduled to be held tomorrow ie., 17.11.2021 forenoon.
Decision
2. The learned Advocate General appearing for theState and learned Sr. Panel Counsel representing the Wakf Board vehemently oppose the writ petitions on the ground of availability of alternate & equally efficacious remedy, post election; they also contend that ordinarily the Writ Courts do not grant indulgence once the election process commences. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as in terms of Sec.83 of Wakf Act 1995 as amended in 2013, a Tribunal has been constituted; learned AG is more than justified in pointing out that sub-sections (1) & (2) of Sec.83 of the Act are couched in a very wide language and the dispute of the kind do fit into their four - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:14384 WP No. 30997 of 2024 C/W WP No. 29380 of 2024 these provisions employ terms corners; ‘determination of any dispute’ & ‘any person aggrieved’ as their building blocks. Thus the petitioners have an alternate & equally efficacious remedy. the 4. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners despite vehement submissions are not in a position to show the special circumstances that warrant the invocation of writ jurisdiction constitutionally vested in this Court; the matter relating to election and election disputes have to be treated by the special Tribunals constituted under the Act in tune with the observations of the Apex Court in JYOTHI BASU vs. DEBI PRASAD GHOSAL, (1982) 3 SCR 318; this apart, the Writ Court cannot interdict the statutory electoral process consistent with what has been said in MOHINDER SINGH GILL vs. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, AIR 1978 SC 851. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed off permitting the petitioners to raise a dispute under sub-sections (1) & (2) of Sec.83 of 1995 Act and all grounds & contentions are kept open. However, the State Government or the Wakf Board shall not take up the contention that the Wakf Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute relating to the election of Chairman of the Board. If election disputes are raised, the same shall be tried & disposed off by the Tribunal within a period of three months after the pleadings are complete and excluding the period of adjournment sought for by the dominant litis. A compliance report shall be submitted to the Registrar General of this Court. Costs made easy.” (Emphasis supplied) In that light, learned senior counsel would submit that in the wake of the said order passed by the coordinate bench, - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:14384 WP No. 30997 of 2024 C/W WP No. 29380 of 2024 these matters arising out of the elections that are already concluded, the petitioners who claim to be the voters from the Electoral College of Muttavallis, cannot maintain these petitions. It has to be necessarily to be challenged before the tribunal. 8. The submission of the learned senior counsel Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, would thus merit acceptance, on a plain reading of what the coordinate bench has held. The petitioners, who claim to be the voters to the Board, are thus, reserved liberty if they so desire, to approach the tribunal, by filing necessary petition under Section 83(1) and (2) of the Waqf Act, 1995, as is held in the order quoted supra. The writ petition challenging the election process after the conclusion of the election, in the considered view of the Court would not be maintainable. 9. The other issue which Sri Vivek S. Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners projects is, with regard to the quorum. The same will also have to be thrashed out before the tribunal, in an appropriately drawn proceedings. Therefore, - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:14384 WP No. 30997 of 2024 C/W WP No. 29380 of 2024 reserving liberty to the petitioners to urge all the contentions before the tribunal under Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995, that are urged in the subject petitions, I deem it appropriate to dispose these petitions. 10. With the observations made above, the petitions stand disposed. All contentions of both the parties shall remain open. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 20 CT:SS