THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.8485 of 2010 (Dated : 24-08-2011) Between: Syed Mohammed Abdul Qadeer & Another …Petitioners A n d Government of Andhra Pradesh, Minorities Welfare Department …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.8485 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition has been taken out by Syed Mohammed Abdul Qadeer and Khader Ali questioning appointment of Iliyase Sait-3rd respondent as a Member of A.P.State Wakf Board on the ground that he is not representing eminent Muslim Organizations for being appointed as a Member under the category of Section 14(1)(c ) of the Wakf Act, 1995. 2. Syed Mohammed Abdul Qadeer has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The case of the petitioners, as set out in the affidavit, in brief, is as hereunder:- The petitioners are persons of Islamic faith and they are interested in matters pertaining to Wakfs and Wakf Institutions. The first petitioner is a member of several Organizations including certain Muslim Organizations. He is also General Secretary of A.P. Progressive Minority Front and Convener of Millath Front. The Wakf Act, 1995 (in short, the `Act’) provides for the establishment of a Central Wakf Council and Wakf Board and specifies their functions. The State Government is required to constitute a Board under Section 14 of the Act. The Board comprises representatives from different categories and backgrounds. It is imperative on the part of the Government that members of the Board must be appointed strictly in conformity with the provisions of the Act. Section 14(1)(c) empowers the State Government to nominate one and not more than two members representing “eminent Muslim Organizations”. The third respondent is not a representative of any “eminent Muslim Organization” and therefore, he is not eligible to be appointed as a member under the category of “eminent Muslim Organization”, as provided under Section 14(1)(c) of the Act. The second petitioner secured information from the Minorities Welfare Department under Right to Information Act, 2005 with regard to the appointment of third respondent as a member of the A.P.State Wakf Board. The information furnished to the 2nd petitioner does not indicate of the third respondent being representative of any “eminent Muslim Organization” and therefore, appointment of the third respondent is contrary to the provisions of Section 14(1)(c) of the Act, in which case, he cannot be allowed to continue as Member of the Wakf Board. 3. Notice to the respondents came to be ordered on 16.4.2010. The respondents 1 and 3 filed counter affidavits. 3(a) Lingaraj Panigrahi, I.A.S., Principal Secretary to Government, Minorities Welfare Department, has sworn to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the Government has nominated Sri Iliyase Sait after fully satisfied that he has all the requisite qualification for being nominated under Section 14(1)(c ) of the Act. Sri Iliyase Sait has more than 30 years of experience as an officer in the Police Department and he has held several senior positions in the Government and during his service he has acquired good knowledge about the laws particularly law pertaining to the Wakf and other Muslim Personal Laws. Government found that his experience would be very much useful in guiding the Wakf Board. Paras 4 to 6 of the counter affidavit need to be noted and they are thus:- “4. It is true that the 2nd petitioner sought certain information under Right to Information Act and the 2nd petitioner has been supplied with the information as requested by him. It is also true that the connected file does not contain the information about which eminent organization, the 3rd respondent belongs to. The Government after being personally satisfied that the 3rd respondent is associated with many eminent Muslim organizations had nominated him under Section 14(1)(c) category. Therefore, his appointment was done in pursuance to the Statute only and there is no deviation with regard to statutory prescription. 5. It is submitted that, it is the subjective satisfaction of the Government to select and nominate Members to the A.P.State Wakf Board, under the Category of Muslim Organization, Scholar in Islamic Theology and Deputy Secretary of State Government. While nominating Members under this category, Government has ascertained personally from the nominated person regarding their Bio- data and after being satisfied the name has been recommended. 6. I submit that, the continuance of the 3rd respondent herein as Member of the A.P.State Wakf Board, is well within the rules in force and there is no violation of statutory requirement. Hence, the contention of the petitioner is not tenable”. 3(b) The counter of the third respondent, in brief, is:- The Government before nominating him as a member of the State Wakf Board has verified his status and category to which he belongs. The Wakf Act has not defined the word “eminent Muslim Organization”. He represents a well-known Muslim organization, i.e., Tableeqi Jamaath (Daawah). He submitted his Bio-data along with Profile showing the work done and the organization to which he is attached. He was an active participant in the work of Dawaah. He being the Chairman of the Board carried out the function with devotion and he even shifted his house from Anantapur District to Hyderabad to take immediate and proper care of the Wakf and also initiated certain projects, increased financial status manifold. The 1st petitioner encroached the wakf property of Mosque Nana Bagh situated at Basheerbagh for which the Board issued notice under Section 54(1) of the Act. The petitioners questioned his appointment after twenty months of the date of formation of the Board and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. 4. When the writ petition came up for admission hearing on 9-8- 2011, with the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Minorities Welfare appearing for the 1st respondent, Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, learned Standing Counsel, A.P.State Wakf Board appearing for the 2nd respondent and Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that a person to be qualified for being appointed as a member of the A.P.State Wakf Board under Section 14(1)(c) of the Act, he must be representing “eminent Muslim Organization” and as the third respondent is not representing any “eminent Muslim Organization” , he is not qualified to be appointed as a member of the Wakf Board in which case, the very appointment is liable to be cancelled. Learned counsel took me to Section 14(1) (c) of the Act, which reads as hereunder:- “14:Composition of Board (1) The Board for a State and the Union territory of Delhi shall consist of- (a) a Chairperson; (b) one and not more than two members, as the State Government may think fit, to be elected from each of the electoral colleges consisting of- (i) Muslim Members of Parliament from the State or, as the case may be, the Union territory of Delhi, (ii) Muslim Members of the State Legislature, (iii) Muslim Members of The Bar Council of the State, and (iv) Mutawallis of the wakfs having an annual income of rupees one lakh and above; (c) One and not more than two members to be nominated by the State Government representing eminent Muslim organisations; (d) One and not more than two members to be nominated by the State Government, each from recognised scholars in Islamic Theology; (e) An officer of the State Government not below the rank of Deputy Secretary. “ 7. Learned counsel by referring the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, submits that by the time of appointment of third respondent as member of the Wakf Board under the category of representative of “eminent Muslim Organization”, the Government had no information as to which “eminent Muslim Organization” the third respondent represents, in which case, the very appointment of the third respondent under the said category cannot be stated to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act. According to the learned counsel, prescription of the category of a person `representing eminent Muslim organization’ is in the nature of a check and balance to guide the executive while making a statutory appointment of the present nature. Representing “eminent Muslim Organization” means he must be a representative of “eminent Muslim Organization” and mere association or membership in the Muslim organization does not meet the requirement of representing “eminent Muslim Organization”. Since the legislature used the word “representing”, it is to be understood in the sense that a person to be appointed as member of the Board must be representative of “eminent Muslim Organization” and mere association or membership in the “eminent Muslim Organization” cannot be construed as a person representing “eminent Muslim Organization”. In support of his contentions, reliance has been placed on the decision in VKSSS Maryadit v. State of Maharashtra[1] and Visitor, AMU v. K.S.Misra[2]. In VKSSS Maryadit ( 1 supra), the Supreme Court held as follows: “The golden rules is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of the statute are clear, plain and unambiguous then the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of the consequences. It is said that the words themselves best declare the intention of the law giver. The Courts have adhered to the principle that efforts should be made to give meaning to each and every word used by the legislature and it is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite surpluses, if they can have a proper application in circumstances conceivable within the contemplation of the statute.” 8. In Visitor, AMU case (2nd supra), the Supreme Court held that while interpreting the statute, it is incumbent upon the court to avoid a construction, if reasonably permissible on the language, which will render a part of the statute devoid of any meaning or application. The courts always presume that the legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislature intent is that every part of the statute should have effect. The legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain and a construction which attributes redundancy to the legislature will not be accepted except for compelling reasons. It is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite surplusage, if they can have appropriate application in circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of the statute. 9. Per contra; Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the third respondent submits that the third respondent hails from a noble family at Hindupur, Anantapur District and his father is descendent from Porbander, Khatiawad in Gujarat close to the birth place of the father of the nation, Mahama Gandhiji, and that he represents a well known Muslim Organization, Tableequi Jamaath (Daawah). A further submission has been made that the Government has taken into consideration the profile of the third respondent and found him eligible for being appointed as a member of the A.P.State Wakf Board and accordingly, appointed him along with other members under G.O.Ms.No.53, Minorities Welfare Department, dated 16.12.2008. The petitioners filed the present writ petition after twenty months of the re-constitution of the A.P.State Wakf Board and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. Learned senior counsel would contend that representative of eminent Muslim organization includes an association or membership with any eminent Muslim organization and not necessarily be elected representative of the concerned “eminent Muslim Organization”. According to the learned senior counsel, Government naturally has to satisfy many sections amongst the classes eligible for appointment and no judicial scrutiny is either permissible or desirable to ascertain who, among the rival claimants, deserves the office most. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Sri Yusuf Qureshi v. Moulana Mohammed Jamaluddin Deccani and others[3]. Paragraph (15) of the cited judgment needs to be noted and it is thus:- “( 15 ) What needs to be noticed at the threshold stage is that no finding was recorded by the learned Judge that none of the persons appointed under the two impugned G.Os., possessed the requisite qualifications. Although the writ petitioners alleged that none of the appellants herein was qualified to be appointed to the Wakf Board under Section 11, no material whatsoever was placed before the learned single judge or before us in support of their assertion. The Government, evidently, wanted to show to the Court that all the members appointed fulfilled the statutory requirements and that is the reason why, we are inclined to think, the Government sought complete information regarding the bio- data of all the members by asking in Wakf Board Secretary to request them to furnish the same for the purpose of transmission to the Government pleader so as to effectively present the case of the Government. Awareness as to eligibility for appointment is one thing and keeping a statement containing the bio-data for the purpose of scrutiny by the Court when the appointment is challenged, is a different thing. It is enough if the Government is aware of the eligibility of the persons it chose to appoint and there is no need to have a detailed bio-data of each of the persons concerned. When appointments of this nature are made, there is no requirement that comparative merits of all the available persons should be considered and the best amongst them only should be chosen. It is not possible to have any guidelines in this regard and that is the reason why the statute, advisedly, mentions only different categories of persons who should fill the membership. Inviting applications, processing and short- listing the same for the purpose of choosing the best, is not contemplated by Section 11. We must also take note of the fact that when appointments are made to bodies like the Wakf Board, the Government naturally has to satisfy many sections amongst the classes eligible for appointment and no judicial scrutiny is either permissible or desirable to ascertain who, among the rival claimants, deserves the office most. The fact that all the persons appointed under the G.Os., impugned in the Writ petition fulfilled the statutory requirements of Section 11 itself affords sufficient evidence in proof of the assertion made on behalf of the appellants that the Government was fully aware of their eligibility. Further, the categorical statement in the counter-affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary on behalf of the State Government that the Government "have appointed the members keeping in view the guidelines given under sub-sections (a) to (d) of Section 11 of the Act" dispels, in the absence of a reply affidavit denying this assertion, any doubts concerning the validity of the appointments. The letter of the Secretary of the Wakf Board dated 12-9-1994 addressed to the Secretary to the Government, Minorities Welfare Department requesting for bio-data "all the categories in which the members have been selected by the Government" was only for the purpose of enabling "the Board's standing counsel to represent the matter effectively". The reply of the Secretary to the Government on 13-9-1994 asking the Wakf Board's Secretary "get the bio-data information immediately from the members and Chairman of the Wakf Board and furnish the same to the standing counsel to represent the matter in the High Court under intimation to this Department" furnishes absolutely no basis, even remotely, to draw the inference that when the appointment were made, the Government was not aware of the eligibility of the members under Section 11. It may be that the "details about their bio-data", as stated by the learned Judge, "were not available with the Government" but that would not be a vitiating factor, in our view, as already stated supra.” 10. Learned Government Pleader has placed on record the entire file emanating issuance of G.O.Ms.No.53, Minorities Welfare Department, dated 16.12.2008. The file contains the profile of the third respondent. The profile of the third respondent reads as hereunder:- “PROFILE OF JANAB ILIYASE SAIT He comes from a noble family at Hindupur, Anantapur District. His father is descendent from Porbander Khatiawad in Gujarat close to Birth Place of our father of the nation Mahatma Gandhiji. His father was a known noble man in entire the Rayalaseema, who had charitable institution and a Big Mosque in Hindupur with good number of properties of his own dedicates as Wakf. Janab Illiyase Sait, being the last son of his family, though in Government Service has broader look towards reformation and well being of the Community. He was an active participant in work of Dawaah. The Basic ………… given in the form of quotation in the HOLY QURAN to do and …..Good, desist from wrong doings. Similarly, Preach and make other….the same which is a basic obligation of every Muslim with strong faith in the religion of Islam. In his all kind of service to humanity he has taken care and practiced himself more than, preaching others. It is not a political and communal organization, it is a social reformation service oriented organization popular and known throughout the globe. It is a sacred and eminent Muslim Organization, which does not believe in maintenance of record as …… Membership or office bearers. Every Muslim of true faith in Islam is a member of this Organization automatically, as per Quran commandment.”. 11. What Section 14(1)(c) stipulates is the Board shall consists of one and not more than two members representing the “eminent Muslim Organization”. It is nowhere indicated in the Act that the persons to be nominated must be elected representative of “eminent Muslim Organization”. The phrase “Eminent Muslim Organization” has not been defined under the Act. If it is the intention of the legislature that only elected representatives of “eminent Muslim Organization” are eligible to be nominated as members, the same must have been indicated in the rule. In this context, in my considered opinion, the word “representing” used in Section 14(1)(c) means a membership or association of “eminent Muslim Organization”. The Government considered the profile of the third respondent and found him eligible for being appointed as a Member of the Board. When once the Government considered the entire profile of the third respondent, it is enough indication that the Government is aware of his eligibility while appointing him as Member. When appointments of this nature are made, there is no requirement that comparative merit of all the eligible persons should be considered and the best among they only should be chosen. It is not possible for any guidelines in this regard and that is the reason why the statute mentioned different categories who should fill the membership. The Board came to be re-constituted under G.O.Ms.No.53, Minorities Welfare Department, dated 16.12.2008. The writ petition has been filed on 15.04.2010. It is stated in the counter filed on behalf of the third respondent that the petitioner No.1 herein is an encroacher of the wakf property and the Board issued notice under Section 54(1) of the Act. This averment in the counter affidavit has not been denied by way of reply affidavit by the petitioners. 11. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.24-0-8-2011 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.8485 of 2010 (Dated : 24-08-2011) [1] (2001) 4 SCC 534 [2] (2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 593 [3] 1996(1) ALT 236 (D.B)