B. R. GAVAI, J.:- Though the petition is initially tiled for a writ of Quowarranto and also for a Writ of Mandamus, the learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions of the petitioners, does not press the petition in so far as the Writ of Quowarranto is concerned and restricts the claim in the present petition only in so far as prayer clauses (C) and (D) are concerned.

2. Facts in nutshell, giving rise to the present petition are as under :-

In exercise of powers conferred by sub-clauses (i) to (iii) of clause (b) and clause (c) of sub-section 1 read with sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act" for the sake of brevity) the Maharashtra State Board of Wakf was constituted by the respondent No.1 herein, vide notification dated 4/1/2002.

It appears that on the said Board, Shri. Mohammad Abdul Aziz was appointed as Chairman, one Shri. Dhature Hafiz Hussain, was appointed as member of the State Legislature, One Shri. Harun Aadam Solkar was appointed as a representative of the Bar Council. One Shri. Chand Pasha Inamdar was appointed as a person representing the eminent Muslim Organization. Shri. Janab lbrahimbhai Q Izuddin and Shri. Maulana Mohammad Assadulla were appointed as Scholars in Islamic Theology.

It appears that subsequently one Shri. Ahmadulla Usmanullah Path an was appointed as representative of the Bar Council vide notification dated 27/7/2006 and one Shri. Shah Tarik Anwar was appointed as a member of Parliament from the State vide notification dated 27/9/2006.

It also appears to be the undisputed position that all the aforesaid members except Shri. A. U. Path an and Shri. Tarik Anwar ceased to hold their office on various dates between 18th May, 2005 to 16th August, 2007 either on account of their resignation or end of the tenure. It thus appears to be a undisputed position that after 16th August, 2007, the Board consisted of only 2 members namely, Shri. A. U. Path an and Shri. Shah Tarik Anwar. It appears that, subsequently, vide notification dated 4th September, 2008, the State Government has nominated the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 herein alongwith one Shri. Maulana Gulam Vastanwi and Smt. Shahin Sayyad Kadri, Deputy Secretary Minorities Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, on the said Board.

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid notification dated 4th September, 2008, issued by the State in exercise of powers under subsection (3) of Section 14, the petitioner who claims to be a Mutawali and as such, entitled for a representation on the Board under Section 14(1)(b)(iv) of the said Act, has approached this court.

4. Shri. Talekar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that since the eligible persons, who could be elected to represent the categories as mentioned in Section 14(1)(b) (i) to (Hi) were available, it was not permissible for the State Government to have taken recourse to subsection (3) of Section 14, for nominating the members on the Wakf Board.

He further submits that power under sub-section (3) of Section 14 could be exercised by the State Government only if the Government is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to constitute an electoral college for any of the categories mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the said Act. He further submits that in view of sub-section (9) of Section 14, it is required that the members of the Board shall be appointed by the State Government by notification in the official Gazette. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as such, it is necessary that the reasons for exercising the powers under Section 14(3) of the Act should be reflected in the notification itself. The learned counsel submits that since no reasons are recorded in the notification, the exercise of power under sub-section (3) of Section 14 is vitiated and as a result of which the notification im

Click Here to Read the rest of this document