Membership of the Waqf Board under Section 14(1)(b)(iii) is not automatically terminated upon losing Bar Council membership; No-Confidence Motion requires signatures from at least half of the members.

JUDGMENT

A. Bimol Singh, J. - Heard Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. H. Kunjeshori, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. M. Devananda, learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by Ms. N. Jyotsana, learned counsel appearing for the State respondents No. 1 and 2, Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Gunabanta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. B.R. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 4 and 5 in WA No. 76 of 2023.

2. The appellants/ writ petitioners have filed the present two writ appeals challenging the legality of the common judgement and order dated 23-08-2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 1105 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 304 of 2023. The core issues to be decided in the present writ appeals are:-

(a) Whether a person who had been appointed as a member of the Waqf Board under Section 14(1)(b)(iii) of the Waqf Act, being a Muslim member of the State Bar Council, shall automatically cease to be a member of the Board when he ceased to be a member of the State Bar Council or not?

(b) Whether a No-Confidence notice which does not fulfil the condition laid down under Section 20A(b) of the Waqf Act can be acted upon or not?

3. On expiry of the term of the six Waqf Board, the Secretariat, Minority Affairs Department, Government of Manipur appointed altogether ten members, including the present two appellants and private respondents, as members of the 7th Waqf Board, Manipur w.e.f. 01-04-2021 by issuing a Notification dated 31-03-2021 and by publishing the said Notification in the Manipur Gazette Extraordinary dated 08-04-2021. The appellant No. 1, viz., Md. Rabi Khan, was appointed as member of the said Waqf Board under Section 14(1)(b)(iii) of the Waqf Act, 1995. As per provisions of Section 15 of the Waqf Act, the term of office of the members of the Board is for five years from the date of Notification referred to in sub-section 9 of Section 14.

4. The case of the appellants is that on 21-08-2022; and 13-09-2022, some members of the Board wrote letters to the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board requesting for calling a special emergency meeting of the Board to discuss and transact some urgent matters/ issues of the Board. Despite receipt of the letters, there was no response, therefore, the appellants along with some members hold a meeting on 05-10-2022 at the office premises of the Waqf Board and in the said meeting, it was resolved to submit a resolution to the Government for issuing notice of No-Confidence Motion against the Chairman. Pursuant to the said resolution, the appellants along with three other members of the Board, including the respondents No. 4 and 5 in WA No. 76 of 2023 submitted a notice for Motion of No-Confidence against the Chairman of the Waqf Board dated 07-10-2022 to the Secretary (Minority Affairs), Government of Manipur by complying with all the formalities as mandated under Section 20A of the Waqf Act, 1995. As no action was taken up by the authorities in connection with the said notice for Motion of No-Confidence, the appellants approached this court by filing WP(C) No. 1105 of 2022 with a prayer for issuing a direction to the authorities to fix time, date and place for holding a meeting of the Board for the purpose of No-Confidence Motion.

5. The stand of the appellants before the learned Single Judge is that as per the provisions of Section 20A(d) of the Waqf Act, 1995, on receipt of notice of No-Confidence, the State Government is mandated to fix such time, date and place as may be considered suitable for holding a meeting for the purpose of the proposed No-Confidence Motion by giving at least 15 days prior notice of holding such a meeting and that the inaction on the part of the State Government is unlawful, illegal and arbitrary and such inaction has violated the fundamental rights of the appellants.

On the other hand, the respondents took the stand before the learned Single Judge that out