Mohd Azim Kirkiray Hisamuddin Kirkiray And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Anothers

{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.10069 OF 2015 Mohd. Azim Kirkiray S/o Hisamuddin Kirkiray and others Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents Mr.T.Y. Sayyed advocate for the petitioners Mr.P.S.Patil, AGP for Respondent No.

_______________ CORAM : R.M. BORDE & A. I. S. CHEEMA, JJ.

Dated : 8th DECEMBER, 2015.

PER COURT :- The petitioner is praying for issuance of writ of quo-warranto against respondent No.4, who has been appointed as the Member of the Wakf Board by the State Government, in exercise of powers conferred under section 14 of Waqf Act, 1995. There shall be a representation of the Muslim Member of Parliament from the State on the Board of Waqf, in view of section 14(1)(d)(i) of the Act. Section 14(1) contemplates that, apart from the Chairperson and other members, the Board shall consist of one and not more than two members, as the State Government

{2} may think fit to be elected from each of the electoral colleges, consisting of Muslim Members of Parliament from the State. It is not a matter of dispute that, there are, in fact two Muslim Members of Parliament and elections amongst two would be impracticable. Subsection 3 of Section 13 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where the State Government is satisfied, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to constitute an electoral college for any of the categories mentioned in subclauses (i) to (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section(1), the State Government may nominate such persons as the members of the Board, as it deems fit.

In the instant matter, since the electoral college consists of only two members, it would not be reasonably practicable to conduct election after constituting an electoral college of the category mentioned in section 14(1)(d)(i) of the Act. Apart from this, the other Member of the Parliament who is eligible, has not raised any objection for nomination of respondent No.2. The petitioner, in the circumstances, cannot be said to have a locus standi to raise the challenge.

{3} instant petition.

Petition is devoid of substance and hence stands dismissed. ( A. I. S. CHEEMA, J. ) ( R. M. BORDE, J. ) vbd