1999 Supreme(Raj) 39
Rajasthan High Court
Honble B.J. SHETHNA, J.
Shukat Ali Ansari - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan & Anr. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 170 of 1999
Decided On : January 20, 1999
D.S. Shishodia, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Manish Shishodia, for Petitioner
Headnote:Wakf Act, 1995, Sec. 19 – Appointment of Administrator – After expiry of term appointment, it was extended although it was not specifically mentioned – On completion of term, it has to be presumed that their term was extended till further orders – It is not necessary that till the new Wakf Board is constituted, they should be continued. (Para 3)
(2). Mr. D.S. Shishodia Sr. Advocate, who is assisted by Mr. Manish Shishodia, for the petitioner, submitted that the order (Annex.P/5) passed by the State Govt. is colourable exercise of its powers. He submitted that there is no such provision in the Act itself to appoint an Administrator of the Board. He further submitted that under proviso to Section 19 of the Act, the Chairman or the member has to be continued in the office until the appointment of his successor is notified in the official Gazette. He also submitted that as per the order at Annex.P/1, the petitioner and the members of the Board were continued by way of an interim arrangement till the constitution of the new Board but in the impugned order at Annex.P/5, it has been deliberately and falsely mentioned that in the earlier order at Annex.P/1, it was mentioned that the appointment will be till further orders. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order at Annex.P/5 be quashed and set aside and the State Govt. be directed to constitute the new Wakf Board immediately.
(3). It is true that in the order dated 2.1.96 (Annex.P/1), it has been mentioned that the petitioner and other members of the Board were continued till the constitution of the new Board by way of an interim arrangement. It is also true that it was never mentioned in that order that their appointment was till further orders. However, the fact cannot be denied and which is not in dispute that the term of the Board was only upto 2.1.96. Thus, this term came to expire long back. Under Section 15 of the Wakf Act, 1995, the members of the Board shall hold the office for a term of five years. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner completed his term of five years. However, learned counsel Mr. Shishodia submitted that he completed his term under the old Act and not under the new Act. If this argument of Mr. Shishodia is to be accepted then there is no question of considering the provisions of new Wakf Act, which has come into force from 1.1.96. Under the proviso to Section 19 of the new Act, the Chairperson or the member can continue in the office until the appointment of his successor is notified in the official Gazette, otherwise not. It is true that in the order dated 2.1.96 (Annex.P/1), it has been mentioned that by way of an interim arrangement, t