7. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, thedisqualification laid down under Section 8 (2) of the Haj Committee Act pertains to ârenominationâ of âoutgoing memberâ of Haj Committee of India and not for the new appointee, as in the case of the petitioner. It is urged that respondent No.2 has wrongly interpreted Section 8(2) of the Act, to the effect that the member of Haj Committee of India can be in office for maximum of two terms only. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the words âtwo termsâ have to be construed to mean, âcontinuous two terms without a breakâ. Here in this case, the petitioner was elected as a member in the year 2008-09 and 2010-13, therefore, much earlier to the election in the year 2016. Hence, the petitioner is not at all an âoutgoing memberâ of the Committee, the term of which has expired on 5th May, 2016.