^i^^i T"!!!S^R ^-Jj.E;.^£ 'agHi ^ff^^w^^l^l^1^^^^!i1^/^'IV^. ^i.uiuy^iSs.iaulBS'laflSuiBSB'iBiciiiff'" ^o^|^''ij.i^i,j(uN?|EuauS||ja||B^|ffi|pp^ ^jio|j.|^|Ni^6v|]'ro>^^'M^j;(t^|!'^p^>^3^^ y|xMS||a3 ai.i»oApy at^t^jyyil.ttoipiEMdui|s ij •.t8uo!+!+3d '^fi.ievg-i-i uiis (i(JD6|t44)nt1t.D) a|!8 f i^) Pauiun>4N z!;^°(-t 'Il |,|.m^i|4»t|ij@j^Kfo^ 'BU!Ol|>|Uii.|»A ^•jS"»&sg;['}jy^-iy|^|:||ntii^mty^-oi y^. ['•jridt^i^.iWjj^jljiun^y. •pt^ (na^ iip3d(^ |uipp^^ •8 •i. •9 •s •V •s •z ji^n^ 'ptzsoylf ojBdBi^<^^t||uw^nvy {juure)| i^.niKpy iujt"S pwuttartfsy ^SSB^ (i(.ro6s!+||i»t.|i(?)6.irK3 'ai.cooApy "(liMnS) P»>"i"«»i|o'W-l(l(°Z (if.irfs?i.MiBi(ij^dndiB%j a<|B3a^ ^qi^ itpg -pi^ (4dogs!+.|.Biit0) 'JBlGON , .WpUOMf^ '•wfW •c»saj<l '(i"""S5 •WW "PtlcW :.|:ll'.':;:::,::t'i:i..'(^^^IX13<!P|l^ ^uaSifcy {{uimg) (i(ssyfy ^ (a^mipEig (•y^ NoBpUw^cy 'iJTmtil (juung) •y-rw->3 'UMUB«rt»UMui|^ (•9'3i) pujutnxaBi,(gn| '"v"rw-^ o"""sy !*nmf'l>a vwph'v^ft (•9-3).indjTO 'tiABtiu+uBW 'iaiawoio •s^-q '.i.uaiu^-iodaq woWl^. AU.IOUIW '^natAl^as JSMVO V^MM^. 't|jo6s!.U»i|(t> fo a+«4S •T srejaA I0026fr-J"d!°a 'qiqiy.DlBy 'pjo/% D|)jnig .it»jyDi|suu^j 'B.iow AMfsoj aiom]S 'iw'pW ilV TS JA ups 'iuijt|SBhTanb«^i,pvpa^ S4.uapuocbay aaNoiLu.ad •f 'ipltiwipaQ ^| |s<|^|r(h(jg t^t^|>|<|,^^ j^'^^^"'c3t<ii<'H :wvao3 KOS8^W^892'°N'WM ],•): r (• A.J:i •"> ^ fU M •^M 'faa WTasyttTiyHW@SIW»(HM38;K^l.W^?H9IH eez fffiffr .; s;':!f&M Xi •2^— 234 fc^' Shri Bharotlal tSembrn, for respondents 2, 6 ond 7. Shri Shailendra Shukla, Advocate with Shri Deepak Pcaidey. for respondent 4. Shri S.K.Beriwal, Advocate with Shri Raton Pushty. Counsel for respondenfs No.8 A 9. None for o'1+ier responctents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on t0tfl January 2006) The following oral order of -the Court was passed by S.R.NAYAK.CJ. 1. The petitioner is Senerat Secre-tary of Chhatt-isgarh Markazi Mutawalli Council, Raipur. He, ckiiming to have genuirie great concern for welfare of Society in general and for welfare of AAuslim communityin particulair, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the validity and legalit/ of the notification issued by the first respondent herein. Sovernment of ChhatriS9arh, ckited 11.12.2001 consti-hiting the Wakf Board for the State of Chhattisgarh in exercise of its power under Section 13 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short. the Act). In the writ petition. the validity of the constitutwn of the Chhattisgou'h Wakf Board is assailed by urging -the following grounds: (A) The respondent no.l has not nominated government officials as member, -therefore, Chhattisgarh Wakf Board is illegal. (B) The Shia Musatmon hos not been included in board •though huvin9 wnkf property in Chhaftisgarh, Othattiagwh Wakf Board is iliegu!. (C) Respondent no.4 and 5 are niinisters huying office of the fruit. cannot be included as members of Chhatt-isgarh Wakf Board, hence illegal. (t>) Respondent no.6 and 7 cannot be said to a member of | Chhott-isgarh State Bor Cbuncil because Chhamsgarh State Bar Council has yet to be forffled, ti'iei'efsr-e, their nommations are illegal and further m M.P. Wakf -3 l.ali....l;; ^ —^-.-—h^- 235 - s Board thcre are *NW members <f M.I^Stute Bar " Council are existBig ond yet workihg. The respondent im.6 A 7 ar®members of A<J>.Sftrte Bar Couwa!, ca Wt be btcluded inboard. (E) Respondent noJB is <Au*oNtrfli atpeady, thepefere he could howe not been incfuded ond nominated h board because *ww»mutoaiwlli have yet to be elected. (F) Re^pondent no.9 and 10 hcwe been wfongly kwnunatetf because respwident no.9 is brolher of respondent no.4, »A»ois minister of Minority wetfoire 6epwhn«rt' and has no connectionwth ony social welfere of 1he organastmn. Reapondent no.IO runs Yatiniyiana and gets refflunenition for his savices rendered to it, •therefore hisaffwuitmentandnomnatwnis illegal. (6) That the notificatwn is m accordantie Nrith sectkm t4(9) of 1he Wakf Act 1995, kaice tneyil. (H) Thort- the notification isinvwlatwn ofsection l4(1) to CB) of W<d<f Act 1995, toice Htegal. CD TTiat Ihe successor state U. State of Chhatt'ugorh hne newr mtended to discorrtinue or bifwcate AlP.Wakf Board which is existmg for bo-th -the stet'es, which has been (egaKy formed, according to secti<m 74(1X0 of tte M.P.Reopgflnisation Act 20 . tfte i^itfle processof fornwtion of Ghhattisgoyh Wakf Boanl is illegd and IxAle to be set aside. 2. This Court while entertamii^ the <wi* (wtition on 26.12J>Opl. stayed the operotion of the notification dated 11.122001. "Oial- ad- interim stay was subsequently vacnted nt •the instunce of Ae State eovemment by -this Court vide order duted 13.07.2005. In •thc interregnum, •the State fiowrament nenowd the deficiencies/reistates pointed out by •the pctitionw to his wri* petition. from Ihe perusal of •the docte* order dated8.7^X)a,-w could find 1hat •this fact- was hrought to 1he notice af 1lw Court Jby the teamed Addl. Advocate fieneral for the State and •rtiis Courl- has -tl- lil'~;"illi I « a®»«««sa—»»'»»°—^—»"B—" 236 ..^*-* ^^' observed 1+iat if •the defects are removed in the consNtutien of •the State WakfBoa-d, the said fact could bebroy^itto the'^oticeof •the Courf at the next datc of heaping. After this event, the biteriffl stay wos vacated by -this Court on 13.7.2(X)5. AscouU be seen from •thot order also, teamed Addt. Advocate ^eneral sufemit'ted •rtiat Itie defects hove been cured in 1fie constilutibn of -rtw CWiattisgari'i State Wakf Board. 3. Be Itiatas it may,h<win9heardleaFnedct>taK»lfor^>eparMes, t»edo not fjnd any substiance jh eny of the grounds urged in parawnph 6 of the wit petition eiliier for the reason Iha* •the ttofects haw been subsequently removed or for •the nsason Ihat Iheflroumisare roisconcejved and untenabte h termsof law. Wearesatitfiedthatas on today there is absolutely no gpeind for us 1o conclude •thart the constilution of -the Chhattisgarh Storte Wakf Board auffiepfffrow any ilfegalitY and imyilnrity. Although *»e heard ^ri H.S.^growal. teamed senior counsel for -the petH'iener for consKfepable 1wne, he was not in a position to inake out any gpound on the basisofwhich— could possibly condemn 1+ie constilution of the Wakf Boord by the State Sovemment, as it exists today. 4. In -Ihe result and for the foregomg reasons.we dismiss •the twH- petition,however, withnoorder<is to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge >i0 n t -inoawill 1 III 1*111111|^