IMPORTANT POINT
The petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the nomination to the Waqf Board as he failed to demonstrate any legal grievance, and the nomination complied with the Waqf Act's provisions.

ORDER :

Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing appointment vide notification dated 05.07.2024 issued by State Government by which respondent No. 3 has been nominated as Member in respondent No. 2/Chhattisgarh Waqf Board and also for issuance of direction to the respondent authorities to appoint members as per Section 14(1)(b)(iv) of the Waqf Act, 1995 (for short “the Act, 1995”).

2. The brief facts as reflected from records are that the petitioner is working as 'Mutawalli' of Masjid Juna Bilaspur Waqf since 1997 which is duly recognized and registered under the relevant provisions of the Act, 1995. The Waqf Board has been constituted as per Section 13 of the Act, 1995, Section 14 of the Act, 1995 provides composition of Board, Section 15 provides terms of office which is five years from the date of notification referred to in Sub-Section (9) of Section 14 of the Act, 1995, Section 16 provides disqualification for being appointment or for continue as a member of the Board. It has been further contended that various members of the Board have been appointed as per the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, 1995 which was published in the official gazette on 06.04.2022 (Annexure P/3). The notification further provides that the members have been nominated from each category as provided in Section 14(1)(b)(ii) & (iii) as well as Section 14(1)(c)(d) & (e) of the Act, 1995. Accordingly, five members were notified. Subsequent to the appointment of aforesaid Board members, they elected a Chairperson as per Section 14(8) of the Act, 1995 vide notification dated 19.04.2022 (Annexure P/4). Since there was no member appointed under Section 14(1)(b)(i) of the Act, 1995, the State Government exercising its power under Section 14(2) & (3) nominated one Mr. Riyaz Hussain as member of the Board vide notification dated 27.10.2022 (Annexure P/5). After the aforesaid appointment, there were six members in the Board, out of which only two members are elected whereas the rest of four members were nominated whereas Section 14 of the Act, 1995 categorically provides that there must be at least one member each under the electoral college provided under Section 14(b)(i) to (iv) of the Act, 1995. Thus, atleast four members must be elected members representing each of the electoral colleges mentioned under Clause 14(b)(i) to (iv). The respondent authorities constituting the Board on 06.04.2022 have not constituted an electoral college for electing members under Section 14(1)(b)(iv) i.e. members from Mutawallis as per Section 14 (1) of the Act, 1995 which provides that for all times there must be one Mutawalli as the member of the Board. The respondent authorities despite the fact that at the relevant time there appears to be only two elected members respectively under Section 14(1)(b)(ii) & (iii) of the Act, 1995. The impugned notification dated 05.07.2024 has been issued nominating yet another member without making any effort for appointing the member by election under Section 14(1)(b)(iv) of the Act, 1995 amongst the Mutawallis.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned notification dated 05.07.2024 (Annexure P/1), by which another member has been nominated is contrary to the provisions contained under the Act, 1995, therefore, the same is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in the law. He would further submit that the legislative intention behind electing such explicit provision for appointment as member to the Board is to ensure that there is fair representation of various classes. However, by the act of omission and commission on the part of the respondent authorities, the mandatory provisions of representation of the Mutawallis as members of the Board are being defeated, hence, the same is illegal. He would further submit that from bare perusal of the impugned notification, it would reveal that no reason has been assigned, which is