Delhi High Court
Rana Parveen Siddiqui And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 8 January, 2016
Author: G. Rohini
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Pronounced on: 08th January, 2016
+ LPA 861/2015 & CM Nos.28790/2015, 28791/2015 & 28793/2015
RANA PARVEEN SIDDIQUI AND ANR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Sudarshan Rajan and Md.Qamar
Ali, Advocates
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Akshay Makhija, CGSC with
Ms.Mahima Bahl, Advocate for R-1
& 3.
Mr.Santosh Kumar Tripathi, ASC
with Mr.Wasim S.Qadri and
Ms.Shilpa Dewan, Advocates for
GNCTD.
AND
+ LPA 862/2015 & CM Nos.28797/2015, 28801-03/2015
RANA PARVEEN SIDDIQUI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Sudarshan Rajan and Md.Qamar
Ali, Advocates
Versus
THE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Santosh Kumar Tripathi, ASC
with Mr. Wasim S. Qadri and
Ms.Shilpa Dewan, Advocates for
GNCTD.
LPA Nos.861/2015 & 862/2015 Page 1 of 6
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JUDGMENT
G.ROHINI, CHIEF JUSTICE:
1. These two appeals are preferred against the order dated 18.11.2015
passed by the learned Single Judge declining to grant interim relief pending
W.P.(C) No.10047/2015 and W.P.(C).4226/2015.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties.
3. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 13 and Section 14
of the Waqf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Government
of National Capital Territory of Delhi constituted Delhi Waqf Board (for
short referred to as 'the Board') vide Notification dated 27.12.2011.
4. In terms of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, the said Board consisted four
elected members from the electoral college constituted for each category
mentioned therein, namely, one member of Parliament from the State, one
member of the State Legislature, one member of Delhi State Bar Council
and Mutawalli apart from three members nominated by the State
Government in terms of Section 14(1)(c) of the Act.
5. The appellant herein falls under the category specified in Section
14(1)(b)(iii) i.e. Muslim member of the Bar Council. Initially, the elected
member of the Legislative Assembly was the Chairperson of the Board.
However, due to the dissolution of the Delhi Legislative Assembly on
04.01.2014, he ceased to hold office. The appellant states that in the
meeting of the Board held on 20.01.2015, she was unanimously elected as
Chairperson by four out of six members in terms of sub-Section (8) of
Section 14 of the Act.
6. While so, elections were held to the Delhi Legislative Assembly.
Apprehending that the newly elected Muslim member of the State
Legislature falling under the category Section 14(1)(b)(ii) may be appointed
as Chairperson of the Board, the appellant herein filed W.P.(C)
No.4226/2015 in April, 2015 seeking a direction to issue a mandamus
directing the respondent/Government of NCTD to issue a notification of her
election as Chairperson without further delay. This court by order dated
29.04.2015 directed that status quo vis-à-vis the position of the Chairperson
be maintained.
7. During the pendency of the said writ petition, by Notification dated
08.10.2015 issued by the Government of NCTD in exercise of the powers
conferred under Section 99(1) of the Waqf Act, the Delhi Waqf Board has
been superseded with immediate effect for a period of six months declaring
that in accordance with Section 99(2)(b) of the Act, all the powers and
duties of the Delhi Waqf Board shall be exercised and performed by the
Secretary (Revenue), Government of NCT of Delhi from the date of the said
notification. Challenging the said Notification dated 08.10.2015, W.P.(C)
No.10047/2015 has been filed by the Delhi Waqf Board contending inter
alia that the impugned supersession without notice to show cause is illegal.
The further contention is that though the impugned notification dated
08.10.2015 is stated to have been issued "by order and in the name of
Lieutenant Governor of NCTD", in fact the file was not sent to the
Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and thus, the impugned notification is in
nullity being contrary to the provisions of Section 99 (1) of the Waqf Act,
1995 read with Rule 2(1)(n) and (p) of the Delhi Waqf Rules, 1997.
8. When W.P.(C) No.10047/2015 was taken up by the learned Single
Judge on 05.11.2015 along with W.P.(C) No.4226/2015, it was represented
by the respondents that supersession was effected because out of total seven
members comprising the Delhi Waqf Board, five members had resigned and
that three vacancies are required to be filled up by nomination by the State
Government and the remaining two are to be filled up by holding an election
from amongst the Muslim members of Parliament and Muslim members of
Legislative Assembly of Delhi.
9. On 18.11.2015, the learned Single Judge while directing the
respondent Nos.1 to 3 in W.P.(C) No.10047/2015 i.e. the Union of India and
the Government of NCT of Delhi to file their respective counter affidavits,
declined to grant interim stay of the impugned Notification dated 08.10.2015
observing that the Board which is to comprise of seven members cannot be
allowed to function when five of its members are unwilling to function.
Having regard to the fact that out of the seven members of the Board, five
had submitted their resignations and the notification of supersession has
been challenged by the only remaining two members, it was also observed
that it is not in public interest to allow the remaining two members to
function as the Waqf Board. The learned Single Judge also declined to
extend the interim order of status quo granted earlier in W.P.(C)
No.4226/2015.
10. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals have been filed.
11. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants that the supersession of the Board without providing an
opportunity to the Board to show cause why it should not be superseded is
arbitrary and illegal apart from being violative of the mandatory requirement
under Section 99(1) of the Act. It is also contended that the supersession
under Section 99(1) of the Act can be ordered only on the grounds specified
thereunder and since none of the said contingencies have arisen, the
impugned supersession is unwarranted and illegal.
12. It may, at the outset, be mentioned that the main petitions are yet to be
heard on merits by the learned Single Judge. Admittedly, the petitions stand
posted to 01.02.2016. The learned Single Judge declined to grant the
interim relief in view of the admitted fact that only two members are left in
the Board after the resignation of five members and that the quorum for any
meeting of the Board is five members and therefore it is not in public
interest to allow the Board to function only with two members. We do not
find any justifiable reason to hold that the learned Single Judge has
committed any error in declining to stay the notification of supersession
impugned in the writ petition in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case.
13. The contention of the appellant that the impugned supersession is not
in conformity with the statutory provisions needs consideration in the main
petitions after the counter affidavits are filed by the respondents. Hence, the
interference by us at this stage is not warranted on any ground whatsoever.
However, further steps if any taken by the respondents pursuant to the
impugned notification dated 08.10.2015 shall be subject to result of the writ
petitions.
14. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of. All pending
applications shall also stand disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
JAYANT NATH, J
JANUARY 08, 2016
kks
