The State Of Tamil Nadu vs K. Fazlur Rahman

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3603­3605 Of 2020 (arising out of SLP(C)Nos.10294­10296 of 2020)

The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. ...APPELLANTS

VERSUS

K. FAZLUR RAHMAN & ANR. ...RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been filed against the common

judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated

17.08.2020 in Writ Petition Nos.726 of 2020, 8377 of 2020

and 9557 of 2020. The Division Bench of the High Court by

the impugned judgment has allowed Writ Petition Nos. 8377

and 9557 of 2020. The State of Tamil Nadu aggrieved by Signature Not Verified

the impugned judgment has come up in these appeals. Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date: 2020.11.03 16:46:59 IST Reason: 2

3. The brief facts of the case to be noted for deciding

these appeals are:

The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board is a statutory body

governed by the Waqf Act, 1995. The term of earlier Waqf

Board expired on 14.06.2017 and thereafter the State of

Tamil Nadu reconstituted Tamil Nadu Waqf Board by order

dated 10.10.2017. The Board constituted on 10.10.2017

consisted of 11 Muslim members to the following effect:

"Muslim Member of Parliament

Thiru A. Anwhar Raajhaa, M.P.

Muslim member of State Legislature

1. Thiru K.A.M. Muhammed Abubacker, M.L.A.

2. Thiru K.S. Masthan M.L.A.

Senior Muslim Advocates

1. Thiru A. Sirajudeen

2. Thiru M. Ajmal Khan 3

Mutawallis

1. Dr. Haja K. Majeed

2. Thiru Syed Ali Akbar

Person with professional experience

Thiru A. Tamilmahan Hussain

Recognized scholars Shia and Sunni Islamic Theology

1. Tmt. Amatul Atifa, Scholar in Shia Islamic Theology

2. Tmt. A.S. Fathima Muzaffer, Scholar in Sunni Islamic Theology

State Government Nominee

Thiru M.A. Siddique, I.A.S.”

4. Two Senior Muslim Advocates as referred above were

nominated by the State Government in exercise of power

under proviso to Section 14(1)(b)(iii) of the Waqf Act,

1995. One Muslim Member of Parliament, two Muslim Members

of State Legislature and two Mutawallis were elected

members under Section 14(1)(b). The nomination of two

Senior Muslim Advocates was challenged before the High 4

Court by a writ petition which was dismissed upholding

the nomination.

5. The State Government issued a notification dated

18.09.2019 in exercise of power under Section 99(1) of

the Waqf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act,

1995”) superseding the Waqf Board. The notification dated

18.09.2019 was issued after issuance of show cause notice

to the 10 members of Waqf Board existing at that time.

The membership of A. Anwhar Raajhaa, Member of

Parliament ceased in May, 2019 reducing number of members

as 10. The State Government was of the opinion that two

Senior Advocates who were nominated as members under

Section 14(1)(b)(iii) proviso cannot be treated as

elected members hence the number of elected members are

less than nominated members resultantly the Board is

unable to perform its work as per the Waqf Act, 1995. The

ground of supersession is mentioned in paragraph 8 of the

notification 18.09.2019 which is to the following effect:

"8. And whereas, the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board has been called upon to show cause within 7 days 5

from the receipt of that notice as to why the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board should not be superseded by the State Government under Section 99 of the Waqf Act, 1995. Further it has also been mentioned therein that in case no reply is received within stipulated time, action will be pursued in accordance with law. The show cause notice was served to all the present 10 members of the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board. In response to the show cause notice, out of 10 members 4 members namely, Thiruvalargal K.A.M. Muhammed Abubacker, M.L.A., A.S. Fathima Muzaffer, Dr. Haja K. Majeed, Syed Ali Akbar, Members, Tamil Nadu Waqf Board alone have sent their replies to the Government. They have stated that the Senior Advocates nominated as Members can be considered as elected members and requested that the superseding process may be dropped. In this regard, the Government had already received legal opinion that the Senior Advocates can be considered as nominated members. In view of above, the elected members are less than the nominated members and the Board is unable to perform its functions as per the Waqf Act, 1995. Thiru A. Sirajudeed, member, Tamil Nadu Waqf Board without responding to the notice has submitted his resignation as a member of the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, citing personal reasons vide his letter dated 09.09.2019.”

6. The period of Waqf Board was further extended by

another six months upto 07.09.2020 by order dated

20.05.2020. The process for reconstituting the Waqf Board

was initiated by order dated 14.07.2020. Writ Petition

No.7661 of 2020 was filed challenging the order dated 6

14.07.2020. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned

Single Judge of the High Court vide its judgment dated

24.07.2020 upholding the process of election initiated by

order dated 14.07.2020. Writ Petition No. 8377 of 2020

(Syed Ali Akbar vs. State of Tamil Nadu) was filed

questioning the order dated 18.09.2019 superseding the

Board as well as order dated 12.05.2020. Syed Ali Akbar

was elected member of the Board reconstituted on

10.10.2017 from the constituency of Mutawallis. Syed Ali

Akbar filed another Writ Petition No.9557 of 2020 before

the Madras High Court praying for issuances of writs for

quashing the press release dated 09.06.2020 and

consequential press release dated 14.07.2020. The

respondent, K. Fazlur Rahman filed Writ Petition No.726

of 2020 challenging the Government order dated 18.09.2019

by way of Public Interest Litigation in which writ

petition an interim order dated 18.03.2020 was passed by

the High Court to the effect that any action taken during

the interregnum shall be subject to the result of the

writ petition. All the writ petitions were decided by the

High Court by the common judgment dated 17.08.2020.

7 Although, the High Court held that supersession dated

18.09.2019 was not in accordance with law, however, the

said order was set aside insofar as the election of two

persons Syed Ali Akbar and Dr. Haja K. Majeed alone. In

paragraphs 22 and 23 following was held by the High

Court:

"22. For these reasons, we accordingly hold that the order passed by us including the observation made on the impugned order would be applicable to these two persons alone. We have also been told that the process is completed for all other constituencies except mutawalli constituency.

23. Accordingly, the impugned order of supersession in G.O.(Ms.) No.58 (Backward Class, Most Backward Class and Minorities Welfare (T1) Department) dated 18th September 2019 and the consequential orders stand set aside insofar as the election of two persons viz.,.Syed Ali Akbar and Dr. Haja K. Majeed alone are concerned. The writ petitions in W.P. Nos.8377 and 9557 of 2020 stand allowed accordingly.”

7. As per the election programme issued on 14.07.2020,

the date of polling was fixed on 19.08.2020. The schedule

of dates for various stages of election to constitute the

Tamil Nadu Waqf Board was published in the Tamil Nadu

Government Gazette dated 15.07.2020. The High Court by 8

the impugned order dated 17.08.2020 had quashed the order

dated 18.09.2019 insofar as two members of the Board of

Mutawallis constituency are concerned, process for

electing/nominating other members of the Board was

untouched and was completed. In the SLP giving rise to

these appeals, an interim order was passed on 28.08.2020

staying of the operation of the impugned judgment dated

17.08.2020. The counter­affidavit has been filed both by

respondent No.1, K. Fazlur Rahman as well as Syed Ali

Akbar, respondent No.2.

8. We have heard Shri C.S. Vaidhyanathan, Senior

Advocate appearing for the appellant, Shri Ratnakar Dash,

Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Shri

Mehmood Pracha, Advocate appearing for respondent No.2.

9. Shri C.S. Vaidhyanathan, learned senior counsel for

the appellant submits that Section 14(4) of the Act, 1995

provides that elected members of the Board shall at, all

time, be more than the nominated members of the Board. In

May, 2019 the number of elected members became four with

six nominated members, making the Board unable to perform 9

its functions. Therefore, in exercise of power under

Section 99 of Act, 1995, the Board was superseded vide

G.O. dated 18.09.2019. The State Government has rightly

exercised the power under Section 99 and the Government

formed the opinion that the Board is “unable to perform”,

hence the supersession was ordered. The supersession

dated 18.09.2019 was extended by subsequent notification

dated 16.03.2020. The Division Bench committed error in

setting aside the notification dated 18.09.2019

partially. There can be no partial setting aside of the

supersession order. The validity of the supersession

order was upheld by the High Court in Writ Petition

No.20417 of 2019 vide its judgment dated 12.11.2019. The

supersession order was challenged by Syed Ali Akbar only

in July, 2020 with delay and laches. The election process

having once started could not have been interfered by the

High Court. It is not disputed that there are only 10

members in the Board at the relevant time after Member of

Parliament demitted office. The number of nominated

members being more than the elected members the State had

no option except to supersede the Board and start fresh 10

process for constituting the Board. The validity of

notification dated 15.07.2019 was upheld by the High

Court in Writ Petition No.20085 of 2019 by its judgment

dated 12.11.2019 which issue had become final. The writ

petition proceedings initiated by the respondent is

barred by constructive res judicata. The High Court vide

impugned judgment violated the principles of comity of

Court as different benches of the High Court had upheld

the validity of the notification dated 15.07.2020. After

the interim order passed by this Court on 28.08.2020,

without prejudice to the outcome of the instant case,

election was held on 09.09.2020 by secret ballot and the

votes polled were counted on 10.09.2020. A. Abdul Rahman

and M. Mohamed Basheer declared elected subject to

further orders.

10. Shri Ratnakar Dash, learned senior counsel for

respondent No.1 submits that provision of Section 14(4)

was not violated since two Senior Advocates who have been

nominated under Section 14(1)(b)(iii) proviso should have

been declared as elected members in which case numbers of 11

elected members shall not be less than nominated members.

Shri Dash submits that there was no ground for invoking

Section 99 in the facts of the present case.

11. Shri Mehmood Pracha, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2, submits that present was not the case

where power under Section 99 could have been invoked. It

is submitted that as per second proviso to Section 99(1)

the power of the State Government can be exercised only

when there is a prima facie evidence of financial

irregularity, misconduct or violation of the provisions

of this Act. It is submitted that the grounds given for

supersession in the order dated 18.09.2019 are not

covered by Section 99(1) especially second proviso. It is

submitted that responsibility to constitute the Board is

on the State Government hence it cannot take benefit of

its own wrong. It was for the State to ensure that number

of elected members is not less than the nominated

members. It is submitted that State was obliged to ensure

compliance of Section 14(4). He submits that under

Section 14(2) in absence of any Muslim member of the 12

State Bar Council ex­members shall constitute the

electoral college, hence election ought to be conducted

under Section 14(1)(b)(iii). He submitted that nomination

of two Senior Advocates under Section 14(1)(b)(iii) was

void. It was State Government which had included two

Senior Lawyers in the Board which cannot be said to be

any violation committed by the Board. He submits that

term of the members is five years which cannot be

curtailed.

12. Shri C.S. Vaidhyanathan, in his rejoinder affidavit,

submits that there are no findings or allegation of any

kind of mala fide on the part of the State Government

which submission cannot be raised by the respondents in

these appeals. He submits that the High Court ought not

to have set aside the notification dated 18.09.2019.

13. We have considered the submissions of the learned

counsel for the parties and perused the records.

14. We need to first consider the scheme of Section 14

of the Act, 1995 regarding constitution/Composition of 13

Board which provision is as follows:

“Section 14. Composition of Board.—(1) The Board for a State and the National Capital 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, 3 [the National Capital Territory of Delhi];

(ii) Muslim Members of the State Legislature;

(iii) Muslim members of the Bar Council of the concerned State or Union territory: Provided that in case there is no Muslim member of the Bar Council of a State or a Union territory, the State Government or the Union territory administration, as the case may be, may nominate any senior Muslim advocate from that State or the Union territory, and

(iv) mutawallis of the auqaf having an annual income of rupees one lakh and above.

Explanation I.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the members from categories mentioned in sub­clauses (i) to (iv), shall be elected from the electoral college constituted for each category.

14

Explanation II.—For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that in case a Muslim member ceases to be a Member of Parliament from the State or National Capital Territory of Delhi as referred to in sub­clause (i) of clause

(b) or ceases to be a Member of the State Legislative Assembly as required under sub­clause (ii) of clause (b), such member shall be deemed to have vacated the office of the member of the Board for the State or National Capital Territory of Delhi, as the case may be, from the date from which such member ceased to be a Member of Parliament from the State National Capital Territory of Delhi, or a Member of the State Legislative Assembly, as the case may be;]

(c) one person from amongst Muslims, who has professional experience in town planning or business management, social work, finance or revenue, agriculture and development activities, to be nominated by the State Government;

(d) one person each from amongst Muslims, to be nominated by the State Government from recognised scholars in Shia and Sunni Islamic Theology;

(e) one person from amongst Muslims, to be nominated by the State Government from amongst the officers of the State Government not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the State Government;

(1A) No Minister of the Central Government or, as the case may be, a State Government, shall be elected or nominated 15

as a member of the Board: Provided that in case of a Union territory, the Board shall consist of not less than five and not more than seven members to be appointed by the Central Government from categories specified under sub­clauses (i) to (iv) of clause (b) or clauses (c) to (e) in sub­ section (1):

Provided further that at least two Members appointed on the Board shall be women:

Provided also that in every case where the system of mutawalli exists, there shall be one mutawalli as the member of the Board.

(2) Election of the members specified in clause (b) of sub­section (1) shall be held in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of a single transferable vote, in such manner as may be prescribed:

Provided that where the number of Muslim Members of Parliament, the State Legislature or the State Bar Council, as the case may be, is only one, such Muslim Member shall be declared to have been elected on the Board:

Provided further that where there are no Muslim Members in any of the categories mentioned in sub­clauses (i) to (iii) of clause (b) of sub­section (1) the ex­ Muslim Members of Parliament, the State Legislature or ex­member of the State Bar Council, as the case may be, shall constitute the electoral college.

16

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where the State Government is satisfied, for 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 sub­section (1), the State Government may nominate such persons as the members of the Board as it deems fit.

(4) The number of elected members of the Board shall, at all times, be more than the nominated members of the Board except as provided under sub­section (3).

..................”

15. As noted above when the Board was constituted

initially on 10.10.2017 there was one elected member

under Section 14(1)(b)(i), two elected members under

Section 14(1)(b)(ii) and two elected members under

Section 14(1)(b)iv). Thus, there were five elected

members. The State Government had nominated two Senior

Advocates under Section 14(1)(b)(iii) proviso, since,

there was no Muslim member from the Bar Council of the

State. Under Section 14(1)(c), (d) and (e) total four

members were nominated. Initially the stand of the State

was that two members nominated under Section 14(1)(b) 17

(iii) are to be treated as elected members, thus, due to

which State claimed composition of Board in accordance

with Section 14(4). On receipt of the legal advice that

members under Section 14(1)(b)(iii) proviso cannot be

treated as elected members of the Board, Government

formed the opinion that number of elected members are

less than nominated members. Consequently, proceeded to

supersede the Board by notification dated 18.09.2019. The

composition of Board as provided under Section 14

consists of both “elected” and “nominated members”,

wherever the words 'nominated members' have been used,

there can be no circumstances that they can be treated as

elected members. Section 14(4) which provides that number

of elected members of the Board shall at, all times, be

more than the nominated members of the Board, is subject

to an exception which is provided in sub­Section (3).

Sub­section (3) contemplates that where the State

Government is satisfied, for 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 18

sub­section (1), the State Government may nominate such

persons. If nomination is made under Section 14(3), in

such situation mandate of Section 14(4) shall not be

applicable, thus, Section 14 itself contemplates

situation where there may be more nominated members than

the elected members.

16. It is the State Government which is to establish a

Board as per composition provided under Section 14.

Section 14(4) is a provision which incorporates

democratic principles in constitution of the Board. The

Legislature contemplates that Board is to be run by

majority of elected members which is to ensure democratic

principle and make the voice of elected representatives a

determining factor in the decisions of the Board.

17. From the facts as noted above, there can be no

dispute that at the time when the Board issued show cause

notice as well as notification dated 18.09.2019, the

number of elected members was less than the number of

nominated members. The provision of Section 14(4) which 19

mandates that number of elected members of the Board

shall at, all times, be more than the nominated members

of the Board is a provision compliance of which has to be

ensured by the State which is authorised to constitute

the Board. While constituting the Board, the State

Government has to be conscious of the fact that the

composition of Board shall be such which may fulfill the

objectives enshrined in Section 14(4). The State

Government when makes nomination of two Senior Advocates

under Section 14(1)(b)(iii), the said nomination was

bound to have adverse effect on requirement of Section

14(4). While constituting the Board as per Section 14,

the State has to keep in mind the principles and

objectives as enshrined in Section 14(4) and constitution

of Board shall be such as to give effect to the

democratic principle which is to guide the Board in its

functions.

18. In this context, we may also notice a Division Bench

judgment of Madras High Court in M.H. Jawahirullah and

others vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others, (2013) 3 20

MLJ 688, where the Madras High Court has correctly

noticed the legislative intendment while constituting the

Board under Section 14 of the Act. Following observation

had been made in paragraph 27:

"27......Primacy given to democratic process of administration and supervision in Wakf Board Management is apparent. In fact, the Statement of Objects and reasons shows this composition and election is an important feature of the Wakf Act. Since the intention of the Legislature is to have democratic process of administration and supervision in Wakf Board Management, the State cannot avoid election and resort to nomination arbitrarily. The only exception is Section 14(3). In Section 14(3), the Government is given discretion to exercise power to nominate such persons as members of the Board.”

19. After noticing the scheme of Section 14 now we come

to Section 99 which has been invoked by the Government in

superseding the Board constituted on 10.10.2017. Section

99 of the Act, 1995 provides:

“Section 99. Power to supersede Board.—(1) If the State Government is of opinion that the Board is unable to perform or has persistently made default in the performance of, the duty imposed on it by or under this Act or has 21

exceeded or abused its powers, or has wilfully and without sufficient cause failed to comply with any direction issued by the Central Government under section 96 or the State Government under section 97, or if the State Government is satisfied on consideration of any report submitted after annual inspection, that the Board’s continuance is likely to be injurious to the interests of the auqaf in the State, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, supersede the Board for a period not exceeding six months:

Provided that before issuing a notification under this sub­section, the State Government shall give a reasonable time to the Board to show cause why it should not be superseded and shall consider the explanations and objections, if any, of the Board:

Provided further that the power of the State Government under this section shall not be exercised unless there is a prima facie evidence of financial irregularity, misconduct or violation of the provisions of this Act.

(2)....................

(3)....................”

20. Section 99 (1) provides that if the State Government

is of opinion that the Board is unable to perform or has

persistently made default in the performance of, the duty

imposed on it by or under this Act or has exceeded or 22

abused its powers, or has wilfully and without sufficient

cause failed to comply with any direction issued by the

Central Government under Section 96 or the State

Government under Section 97, or if the State Government

is satisfied on consideration of any report submitted

after annual inspection, that the Board's continuance is

likely to be injurious to the interests of the auqaf in

the State, the Government may supersede the Board. The

ground for superseding the Board in the notification

dated 18.09.2019 is that Board is unable to perform

which is due to the fact that number of nominated members

has become more than elected members.

21. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has given

emphasis on second proviso to Section 99(1) which reads:

“Provided further that the power of the State Government

under this section shall not be exercised unless there is

a prima facie evidence of financial irregularity,

misconduct or violation of the provisions of this Act”.

The expression unable to perform is an expression of wide

import. We may look into the scheme of supersession as 23

contained in Section 99. The supersession is based on

some action, inaction, omission or misconduct of the

Board. The Act, 1995 enumerates various powers and

functions of the Board. When the Board is constituted it

is entitled to exercise its powers and functions as

enumerated in various Sections including Sections 32, 38,

39, 41, 48 and 53, etc. Section 22 is a clause which

saves proceedings of the Board from invalidity due to

reason only of the existence of any vacancy or any defect

in the constitution. Section 22 is as follows:

“Section 22. Vacancies, etc., not to invalidate proceedings of the Board.—No act or proceeding of the Board shall be invalid by reason only of the existence of any vacancy amongst its member or any defect in the constitution thereof.”

22. That in event there is vacancy in the Board or any

defect thereof, the proceedings or act of the Board are

not to be invalidated which has been saved by Section 22.

Thus, when the initially Board was constituted on

10.10.2017, the objective as enshrined in Section 14 was 24

not fulfilled even in the initial constitution, the Board

has been superseded not due to any action, inaction or

omission and misconduct on the part of the Board rather

due to number of elected members becoming less than to

the nominated members. The order dated 18.09.2019 spells

out the reason for supersession, i.e., A. Anwhar Raajhaa,

Member of Parliament whose term came to end in May, 2019,

other members of the Board as constituted on 10.10.2017

were same, thus, the circumstance which has been taken as

ground for supersession of the Board was not any action

of the Board. The event of cessation of membership of an

elected member is not under control of the Board. It was

the duty of the State Government to constitute the Board

as per the objectives enshrined in Section 14(4). The

State Government has ample power to conduct election for

the members as enumerated in Section 14(i)(b), (i) to

(iv).

23. In the facts of the present case, the State

Government could have very well complied with objective

of Section 14(4) by conducting an election for members 25

under Section 14(1)(b)(iii) by permitting nominated

members to continue till the election is held. The State

has further option to exercise power under Section 14(3)

in event State was satisfied 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 sub­section (1), the State could have then

nominated under Section 14(3) which nomination shall have

overriding effect on the objective of Section 14(4) since

sub­section (3) begins with non obstante clause

“Notwithstanding anything contained in this section,”.

The obligation on the State Government to constitute the

Board in accordance with Section 14 keeping in view the

objective under Section 14(4) was both right and duty of

the State and any lapse therein cannot be a ground for

superseding the Board.

24. We may also notice the objective and purpose of the

second proviso to Section 99 which has been inserted by

Act 27 of 2013. Second proviso contains an injunction

that the power of the State Government shall not be 26

exercised unless there is a prima facie evidence of

financial irregularity, misconduct or violation of the

provisions of the Act. The present is not a case of any

allegation of any financial irregularity or misconduct on

the part of the Board. The proviso is sought to be

explained by Shri C.S. Vaidhyanathan relying on the

“violation of the provisions of this Act”.

25. The word 'violation' is defined in the Black's Law

Dictionary Tenth Edition to the following effect:

"An infraction or breach of the law; a transgression. The act of breaking or dishonoring the law; the contravention of a right or duty.”

26. The second proviso has to be read in conjunction

with the main provision. The second proviso contains

further restriction on the power of State Government to

supersede the Board, i.e., unless there is prima facie

evidence. There can be no dispute that prima facie

evidence of financial irregularity, misconduct has to be

prima facie financial irregularity or misconduct by the 27

Board which is sought to be superseded. The third

expression that is “violation” of the provisions of this

Act has also to be read in the same manner that is

violation of the provisions of this Act by actions of the

Board. We, thus, are also of the opinion that in view of

the legislative intendment as contained in second

provision to Section 99, present was not a case where

State could have exercised its power of supersession of

the Board. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are

satisfied that the High Court did not commit any error in

holding supersession as contrary to law.

27. Now, we also need to consider the submission of Shri

Vaidhyanathan that the High Court ought not to have set

aside the notification partially insofar as two elected

members of the Mutawalli category only. It is to be noted

that the High Court had categorically held that

supersession order is not sustainable in law but after

holding that, the High Court had moulded the relief in

the facts of the present case and subsequent events which

had taken place. Two writ petitions being Writ Petition 28

No.8377 and 9557 of 2020 which have been allowed by the

High Court were filed by Syed Ali Akbar who was elected

member from the Mutawalli category. Since, only one

category petitioners were before the High Court, it

confined the relief to that category. We need not dwell

into the question any further since before us there is no

further challenge on behalf of the writ petitioners that

supersession order ought to have been set aside in toto.

It is State which has come in the appeals against the

judgment of the High Court which has partially set aside

the notification dated 18.09.2019 for Mutawalli category

only. The High Court has not interfered with the fresh

constitution of the Board by election and nomination of

other categories except the category under Section 14(1)

(b)(iv). In view of the foregoing discussion, we, thus,

upheld the order of the High Court.

28. In result, the fresh election of two members in

category under Section 14(1)(b)(iv) held in the year 2020

shall become non est and Syed Ali Akbar and Dr. Haja K.

Majeed shall continue to occupy their office till their 29

normal tenure of five years from 10.10.2017.

29. All the appeals are dismissed.

..........................J. ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )

..........................J. ( R. SUBHASH REDDY )

..........................J. ( M.R. SHAH ) NEW DELHI, November 03, 2020.