Mr Syed Naveed Altaf Vs. The Karnataka State Board Of Auqaf - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1233939
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided OnApr-20-2022
Case NumberCRP 234/2021
JudgeK.S.MUDAGAL
AppellantMr Syed Naveed Altaf
RespondentThe Karnataka State Board Of Auqaf
Excerpt:
c.r.p.no.234/2021 1 in the high court of karnataka at bengaluru dated this the20h day of april2022before r the hon’ble mrs. justice k.s.mudagal civil revision petition no.234/2021 between: mr. syed naveed altaf s/o m.altaf hussain aged about50years r/at no.3, 7th c main3d cross, 3rd block koramangala bengaluru – 560 034 …petitioner (by miss. shrividya zirali, advocate for sri shivaprasad shantanagoudar, advocate) and:1. the karnataka state board of auqaf no.6, cunningham road bengaluru – 560 052 represented by its chief executive officer2 the managing committee masjid-e-mamoor, k.h.b. colony koramangala, 5th block bengaluru – 560 095 rep. by its secretary …respondents (by sri syed suhail ali, advocate for r1; sri mohammed tippu sultan, advocate for r2) this civil revision petition is filed under section839) of the waqf act, 1995 praying to quash the order dated1002.2021 passed by the karnataka waqf tribunal, bengaluru in application no.19/2020 etc. c.r.p.no.234/2021 2 this civil revision petition coming on for further hearing this day, the court through video conferencing made the following: order heard both side.2. ‘whether the impugned order of the waqf tribunal rejecting the application of the petitioner under section 83(2) of the waqf act, 1995 (for short ‘the act, 1995’) suffers illegality, impropriety and incorrectness?.’ is the question involved in this petition.3. respondent no.1 is the managing committee of masjid-e-mamoor. it is governed by the act, 1995. prior to 06.06.2017, the respondents were governed by karnataka waqf rules, 1997 (for short ‘the rules, 1997). under the said rules, the committee was constituted with the approval of respondent no.1 as per order no.ksba/cmc/01/bnu/2017-18 dated 12.05.2017. said committee consisted of 11 members.4. the karnataka waqf rules, 2017 (for short ‘the rules, 2017’) came into force on 06.06.2017. under rule 100 of 2017 rules, the rules 1997 were repealed. c.r.p.no.234/2021 3 section 32(1) of the act, 1995 provides power for the general superintendence of respondent no.1 over waqf. as per section 32(2)(d) of the act, 1995 it shall be the function of board to settle schemes of the management for waqf. rule 48 of rules, 2017 mandates that within six months from the date of commencement of the said rules, scheme of management shall be framed by the waqf and that shall be approved by respondent no.1.5. rule 48 reads as follows: “48. scheme of management:- within six months from the date of commencement of these waqf rules, the auqaf save and expect auqaf having their deed of waqf (waqifnama) by the waqif shall frame the scheme of management as required under clause (d) of sub-section (2) of section 32 of the act in form 42 duly approved by the board, failing which the district waqf officer or any other officer authorized by the board shall take over management and supervision of the waqf institution and the district waqf officer shall take steps to frame the scheme of management within a period of three months from such take over. while approving the scheme of management, the board shall ensure that the scheme of management is inconsonance with the nature of waqf.” c.r.p.no.234/2021 4 6. the scheme shall be in form no.42. if the management fails to frame the scheme and respondent no.1 fails to approve the same within six months, an administrator has to be appointed. in view of rule 48 of the rules, 2017, respondent no.2 said to have convened the meeting. in compliance with rule 48 of the rules, 2017, respondent no.1 approved the scheme on 22.03.2017 for the management of respondent no.2.7. as per clause 8 of the said scheme there shall be managing committee to manage waqf. clause 8 (i)(c) of the said scheme reads as follows: “8(i)(c) procedure for selection of managing committee by the general body: the existing managing committee/ administrator shall call for a general body meeting by making public announcement in three consecutive jumma prayers before general body meeting and on any officer from the district waqf office or head office shall be invited as an observer to the said proceedings of the general body meeting, they shall select the managing committee. the names of the persons so selected in the general body shall be attested by the c.r.p.no.234/2021 5 observer and forwarded to the head office for its approval.8. in exercise of the powers under clause 8(i)(c) of the scheme, respondent no.2 said to have convened general body meeting in the presence of district waqf officer, assistant secretary of respondent no.1 and the waqf inspector of respondent no.1. in the said meeting, general body unanimously selected/nominated the following 11 persons as members of the committee:1. mr.mohammed rihan nawab s/o a.r.a.nawab 2. dr.mohammed taha mateen s/o h.m.abdul azeez 3. mr.iqbal ahmed baig s/o abdul wahab baig 4. mr.abdul gaffar solanki s/o nizamuddin solanki 5. mr.m.altaf hussain s/o d.s.syed mazhur ul mulk 6. mr.khusro quraishi s/o rasheed quraishi 7. mr.mohammed zaheer s/o abdul ahad 8. mr.syed riyazathullah s/o al haj rahamathulla 9. mr.k.n.zubair ahmed s/o k.m. nazeer ahmed 10. mr.mehdi kalim s/o m.a. kalimulla 11. mr.zulfikar adil s/o md fazil 9. the names and signatures of father, brother and that of the petitioner are found at sl.nos.95, 222 and 226 of the resolution respectively. that shows the c.r.p.no.234/2021 6 petitioner, his father and brother participated in the general body meeting. said resolution was sent to respondent no.1 for approval. before respondent no.1, the petitioner raised his objections dated 30.10.2020. in the objection he raised the following objections: (i) wide publicity was not given about date of the general body meeting. (ii) copy of bye laws was not provided to him. (iii) membership fee fixed was exorbitant. all residents should have been made automatic members. (iv) in forming the managing committee, the provisions of the act, 1995 were not followed. (v) one riyazuddin who was selected as a member amongst eleven had criminal antecedent.10. on considering the objections of the petitioner, respondent no.1 dropped the name of said riyazuddin and passed order dated 02.12.2020 and approved the proposal of general body to appoint the rest ten members as office bearers of the committee. c.r.p.no.234/2021 7 11. the petitioner and one syed shafiur rahman filed applications before the karnataka waqf tribunal under section 83(2) of the act, 1995 to set aside the order of respondent no.1 dated 02.12.2020 approving the proposal of the general body of respondent no.2 selecting ten members as office bearers of the committee and for direction to respondent no.1 to conduct election to the managing committee of masjid-e-mamoor.12. the application of syed shafiur rahman was registered in application no.18/2020 and the petitioner’s application was registered in application no.19/2020. on hearing both side, the tribunal by the impugned order dated 10.02.2021 rejected both the applications by common order. syed shafiur rahman has not challenged that order. therefore, the order has attained finality so far as said person is concerned.13. the petitioner challenged the impugned order on the following grounds: (i) as per clause 8(i)(a) of the scheme, the committee shall consist of 15 members. but, the c.r.p.no.234/2021 8 impugned order of respondent no.1 consists only ten members. (ii) consecutive three meetings by publicly announcing as required under clause 8(i)(c) of the scheme were not convened. (iv) the officer of the district waqf office did not participate and attest the proceedings in the selection process in the general body.14. reiterating the same ground, smt.shrividya zirali, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tribunal without considering the objections raised on the application has passed the impugned order, therefore the same is liable to be set aside.15. sri syed suhail ali, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and sri mohammed tippu sultan, learned counsel for respondent no.2 justify the order on the following grounds: (i) that the scheme has to be in accordance with rule 48 of the rules, 2017 which prescribes that the scheme shall be in form no.42; c.r.p.no.234/2021 9 (ii) form no.42 prescribes that the managing committee shall consists of 11 members; (iii) rules and form no.42 prevail over the scheme. therefore the proposal for selection of 11 members was in accordance with law. one of them was dropped on the objection of the petitioner himself; (iv) the petitioner and his family members participated in general body meeting without raising any objection regarding prior notice or public announcement etc. therefore he is estopped from questioning the correctness of the same; (v) the meeting was conducted after due notice. as per the scheme, the officer of respondent no.1 attested and forwarded the resolution to the board. the said attestation found on the resolution as well the same is referred to in the order of respondent no.1 dated 02.12.2020.16. this being revision petition, the court has to examine whether the tribunal has committed any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in passing the order. the petitioner did not dispute convening of the meeting on c.r.p.no.234/2021 10 16.10.2020. he did not dispute that himself, his brother and father participated in the said meeting proceedings. it is not even the case of the petitioner that during the meeting he objected for holding of the meeting on the ground that sufficient notice of the meeting as required under clause 8(i)(c) of the scheme was not given.17. the petitioner did not raise objection that general body instead of selecting the members of the committee, directly selected the office bearers. said contention was not taken even in the objections filed by him at the first instance on 30.10.2020 before respondent no.1. he claimed before respondent no.1 that there should not be any membership fee for the members. the membership fee was fixed as per the scheme. the petitioner has not challenged the scheme either before this court or before the tribunal.18. it is the contention of the respondents that on 16.10.2020 in the general body meeting, the body first selected 11 persons as members of the committee. it is their further contention that after formation of the c.r.p.no.234/2021 11 committee, the members of the said committee held another meeting on the same day and selected office bearers amongst themselves.19. none of the members of the committee have challenged the selection of president, vice president, secretary, treasury etc. on the ground that they sought election and overruling the said objections, general body itself nominated the office bearers. as per the resolution, the members of the committee by unanimously nominated the office bearers, therefore the said contention was also rightly rejected by the tribunal.20. third contention is that the officers of respondent no.1 did not participate and attest the proceedings as required under clause 8(i)(c) of the scheme. thorough reading of clause 8(i)(c) of the scheme shows that the requirement for the general body is to invite the officer of the district waqf office or head office as observer in the proceedings. the second aspect is names of the persons selected by the general body shall c.r.p.no.234/2021 12 be attested by the observer and forwarded to the head office for approval.21. there is no dispute that the impugned resolution dated 16.10.2020 bear the signatures of two officers of respondent no.1 by name mohammed rizwanuddin and syed akbar. the order dated 02.12.2020 indicates that the concerned officer of respondent no.1 has forwarded the proposal received from respondent no.2 along with two objections. the order further indicates that objection no.1 was overruled. so far as second objection, the member i.e. syed riyazathulla withdrew his candidature. therefore there was sufficient compliance of forwarding of the resolution with attestation of the persons selected as members of the committee and office bearers. the tribunal considering all the materials placed before it, holds that there was due notice of the general body meeting and the meeting was conducted in the presence of the officers of respondent no.1.22. as per clause 10 of the scheme, the members of the managing committee in the very first meeting shall c.r.p.no.234/2021 13 either by consensus or election choose from among themselves the president, vice-president, secretary, treasurer. therefore there is no merit in the contention that selection of the president, vice-president, secretary, treasurer shall be only by election. apart from that none of the members of the committee raised any grievance that they opted for election and the other members snubbed them. therefore there is no merit in the said contention also.23. so far as non-compliance of number of membership, it is no doubt true that clause 8(i)(a) of the scheme prescribes 15 members in the managing committee. however, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents, the scheme shall be in conformity with the rules. as per rule 48 of the rules, 2017, the scheme shall be in form no.42. clause 9(1)(b) of form no.42 in chapter vi prescribes 11 members as members of the committee. accordingly, 11 members were nominated/selected by the committee. one amongst them was deleted on the objection of the petitioner himself. c.r.p.no.234/2021 14 24. clause 9 of the scheme provides for the managing committee members to co-opt for any member of the wafq in case any vacancy arises in the managing committee. the term ‘member’ is defined in chapter 2 clause iv which reads as follows: “iv. “member” means member of waqf institution whose name is entered in the register of members.25. thus it becomes clear that member means any member of the general body. therefore it is always open for the existing 10 members to co-opt another member to make good the vacancy which arises due to withdrawal of syed riyazathulla. even on that ground the petition fails.26. at the cost of repetition, it has to be stated that other members of the waqf by name syed shafiur rahman the applicant in application no.18/2020 did not challenge the order. therefore that part of order has attained finality. on that count also, this petition is liable to be dismissed. c.r.p.no.234/2021 15 for the aforesaid reasons, this court does not find any ground to interfere with the order. therefore the petition is dismissed. sd/- judge pgg/ksr
Judgment:

C.R.P.No.234/2021 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE20H DAY OF APRIL2022BEFORE R THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.234/2021 BETWEEN: MR. SYED NAVEED ALTAF S/O M.ALTAF HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT50YEARS R/AT NO.3, 7TH C MAIN3D CROSS, 3RD BLOCK KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034 …PETITIONER (BY MISS. SHRIVIDYA ZIRALI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

1. THE KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQAF NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU – 560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER2 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE MASJID-E-MAMOOR, K.H.B. COLONY KORAMANGALA, 5TH BLOCK BENGALURU – 560 095 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SYED SUHAIL ALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI MOHAMMED TIPPU SULTAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION839) OF THE WAQF ACT, 1995 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER

DATED1002.2021 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA WAQF TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.19/2020 ETC. C.R.P.No.234/2021 2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

Heard both side.

2. ‘Whether the impugned order of the Waqf Tribunal rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act, 1995’) suffers illegality, impropriety and incorrectness?.’ is the question involved in this petition.

3. Respondent No.1 is the Managing Committee of Masjid-e-Mamoor. It is governed by the Act, 1995. Prior to 06.06.2017, the respondents were governed by Karnataka Waqf Rules, 1997 (for short ‘the Rules, 1997). Under the said Rules, the Committee was constituted with the approval of respondent No.1 as per order No.KSBA/CMC/01/BNU/2017-18 dated 12.05.2017. Said Committee consisted of 11 members.

4. The Karnataka Waqf Rules, 2017 (for short ‘the Rules, 2017’) came into force on 06.06.2017. Under Rule 100 of 2017 Rules, the Rules 1997 were repealed. C.R.P.No.234/2021 3 Section 32(1) of the Act, 1995 provides power for the general superintendence of respondent No.1 over Waqf. As per Section 32(2)(d) of the Act, 1995 it shall be the function of board to settle Schemes of the management for Waqf. Rule 48 of Rules, 2017 mandates that within six months from the date of commencement of the said Rules, Scheme of management shall be framed by the Waqf and that shall be approved by respondent No.1.

5. Rule 48 reads as follows: “48. Scheme of Management:- within six months from the date of commencement of these Waqf Rules, the Auqaf save and expect Auqaf having their deed of waqf (waqifnama) by the waqif shall frame the Scheme of Management as required under Clause (d) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 32 of the Act in Form 42 duly approved by the Board, failing which the District Waqf Officer or any other Officer authorized by the Board shall take over management and supervision of the Waqf institution and the District Waqf Officer shall take steps to frame the scheme of management within a period of three months from such take over. While approving the Scheme of Management, the Board shall ensure that the Scheme of Management is inconsonance with the nature of Waqf.” C.R.P.No.234/2021 4 6. The Scheme shall be in Form No.42. If the management fails to frame the Scheme and respondent No.1 fails to approve the same within six months, an administrator has to be appointed. In view of Rule 48 of the Rules, 2017, respondent No.2 said to have convened the meeting. In compliance with Rule 48 of the Rules, 2017, respondent No.1 approved the Scheme on 22.03.2017 for the management of respondent No.2.

7. As per Clause 8 of the said Scheme there shall be Managing Committee to manage Waqf. Clause 8 (I)(c) of the said Scheme reads as follows: “8(I)(c) PROCEDURE FOR SELECTION OF MANAGING COMMITTEE BY THE GENERAL BODY: The existing managing Committee/ Administrator shall call for a General Body meeting by making public announcement in three consecutive Jumma Prayers before General Body meeting and on any officer from the District Waqf Office or Head Office shall be invited as an Observer to the said proceedings of the General Body meeting, they shall select the managing Committee. The names of the persons so selected in the General Body shall be attested by the C.R.P.No.234/2021 5 observer and forwarded to the Head office for its approval.

8. In exercise of the powers under Clause 8(I)(c) of the Scheme, respondent No.2 said to have convened General Body Meeting in the presence of District Waqf Officer, Assistant Secretary of respondent No.1 and the Waqf Inspector of respondent No.1. In the said meeting, general body unanimously selected/nominated the following 11 persons as members of the committee:

1. Mr.Mohammed Rihan Nawab S/o A.R.A.Nawab 2. Dr.Mohammed Taha Mateen S/o H.M.Abdul Azeez 3. Mr.Iqbal Ahmed Baig S/o Abdul Wahab Baig 4. Mr.Abdul Gaffar Solanki S/o Nizamuddin Solanki 5. Mr.M.Altaf Hussain S/o D.S.Syed Mazhur Ul Mulk 6. Mr.Khusro Quraishi S/o Rasheed Quraishi 7. Mr.Mohammed Zaheer S/o Abdul Ahad 8. Mr.Syed Riyazathullah S/o Al Haj Rahamathulla 9. Mr.K.N.Zubair Ahmed S/o K.M. Nazeer Ahmed 10. Mr.Mehdi Kalim S/o M.A. Kalimulla 11. Mr.Zulfikar Adil S/o MD Fazil 9. The names and signatures of father, brother and that of the petitioner are found at Sl.Nos.95, 222 and 226 of the resolution respectively. That shows the C.R.P.No.234/2021 6 petitioner, his father and brother participated in the General Body Meeting. Said resolution was sent to respondent No.1 for approval. Before respondent No.1, the petitioner raised his objections dated 30.10.2020. In the objection he raised the following objections: (i) Wide publicity was not given about date of the General Body Meeting. (ii) Copy of bye laws was not provided to him. (iii) Membership fee fixed was exorbitant. All residents should have been made automatic members. (iv) In forming the Managing Committee, the provisions of the Act, 1995 were not followed. (v) One Riyazuddin who was selected as a member amongst eleven had criminal antecedent.

10. On considering the objections of the petitioner, respondent No.1 dropped the name of said Riyazuddin and passed order dated 02.12.2020 and approved the proposal of general body to appoint the rest ten members as office bearers of the Committee. C.R.P.No.234/2021 7 11. The petitioner and one Syed Shafiur Rahman filed applications before the Karnataka Waqf Tribunal under Section 83(2) of the Act, 1995 to set aside the order of respondent No.1 dated 02.12.2020 approving the proposal of the general body of respondent No.2 selecting ten members as office bearers of the Committee and for direction to respondent No.1 to conduct election to the Managing Committee of Masjid-e-Mamoor.

12. The application of Syed Shafiur Rahman was registered in Application No.18/2020 and the petitioner’s application was registered in Application No.19/2020. On hearing both side, the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 10.02.2021 rejected both the applications by common order. Syed Shafiur Rahman has not challenged that order. Therefore, the order has attained finality so far as said person is concerned.

13. The petitioner challenged the impugned order on the following grounds: (i) As per Clause 8(I)(a) of the Scheme, the Committee shall consist of 15 members. But, the C.R.P.No.234/2021 8 impugned order of respondent No.1 consists only ten members. (ii) Consecutive three meetings by publicly announcing as required under Clause 8(I)(c) of the Scheme were not convened. (iv) The Officer of the District Waqf Office did not participate and attest the proceedings in the selection process in the general body.

14. Reiterating the same ground, Smt.Shrividya Zirali, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal without considering the objections raised on the application has passed the impugned order, therefore the same is liable to be set aside.

15. Sri Syed Suhail Ali, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Mohammed Tippu Sultan, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 justify the order on the following grounds: (i) That the Scheme has to be in accordance with Rule 48 of the Rules, 2017 which prescribes that the Scheme shall be in Form No.42; C.R.P.No.234/2021 9 (ii) Form No.42 prescribes that the Managing Committee shall consists of 11 members; (iii) Rules and Form No.42 prevail over the Scheme. Therefore the proposal for selection of 11 members was in accordance with law. One of them was dropped on the objection of the petitioner himself; (iv) The petitioner and his family members participated in General Body Meeting without raising any objection regarding prior notice or public announcement etc. therefore he is estopped from questioning the correctness of the same; (v) The meeting was conducted after due notice. As per the Scheme, the Officer of respondent No.1 attested and forwarded the resolution to the Board. The said attestation found on the resolution as well the same is referred to in the order of respondent No.1 dated 02.12.2020.

16. This being revision petition, the Court has to examine whether the Tribunal has committed any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in passing the order. The petitioner did not dispute convening of the meeting on C.R.P.No.234/2021 10 16.10.2020. He did not dispute that himself, his brother and father participated in the said meeting proceedings. It is not even the case of the petitioner that during the meeting he objected for holding of the meeting on the ground that sufficient notice of the meeting as required under Clause 8(I)(c) of the Scheme was not given.

17. The petitioner did not raise objection that General Body instead of selecting the members of the Committee, directly selected the office bearers. Said contention was not taken even in the objections filed by him at the first instance on 30.10.2020 before respondent No.1. He claimed before respondent No.1 that there should not be any membership fee for the members. The membership fee was fixed as per the Scheme. The petitioner has not challenged the Scheme either before this Court or before the Tribunal.

18. It is the contention of the respondents that on 16.10.2020 in the General Body Meeting, the Body first selected 11 persons as members of the Committee. It is their further contention that after formation of the C.R.P.No.234/2021 11 Committee, the members of the said Committee held another meeting on the same day and selected office bearers amongst themselves.

19. None of the members of the Committee have challenged the selection of President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasury etc. on the ground that they sought election and overruling the said objections, general body itself nominated the office bearers. As per the resolution, the members of the Committee by unanimously nominated the office bearers, therefore the said contention was also rightly rejected by the Tribunal.

20. Third contention is that the Officers of respondent No.1 did not participate and attest the proceedings as required under Clause 8(I)(c) of the Scheme. Thorough reading of Clause 8(I)(c) of the Scheme shows that the requirement for the General Body is to invite the Officer of the District Waqf Office or Head Office as Observer in the proceedings. The second aspect is names of the persons selected by the General Body shall C.R.P.No.234/2021 12 be attested by the Observer and forwarded to the Head office for approval.

21. There is no dispute that the impugned resolution dated 16.10.2020 bear the signatures of two Officers of respondent No.1 by name Mohammed Rizwanuddin and Syed Akbar. The order dated 02.12.2020 indicates that the concerned officer of respondent No.1 has forwarded the proposal received from respondent No.2 along with two objections. The order further indicates that objection No.1 was overruled. So far as second objection, the member i.e. Syed Riyazathulla withdrew his candidature. Therefore there was sufficient compliance of forwarding of the resolution with attestation of the persons selected as members of the Committee and office bearers. The Tribunal considering all the materials placed before it, holds that there was due notice of the General Body Meeting and the meeting was conducted in the presence of the officers of respondent No.1.

22. As per Clause 10 of the Scheme, the members of the Managing Committee in the very first meeting shall C.R.P.No.234/2021 13 either by consensus or election choose from among themselves the President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer. Therefore there is no merit in the contention that selection of the President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer shall be only by election. Apart from that none of the members of the Committee raised any grievance that they opted for election and the other members snubbed them. Therefore there is no merit in the said contention also.

23. So far as non-compliance of number of membership, it is no doubt true that Clause 8(I)(a) of the Scheme prescribes 15 members in the Managing Committee. However, as rightly pointed out by learned Counsel for the respondents, the Scheme shall be in conformity with the Rules. As per Rule 48 of the Rules, 2017, the Scheme shall be in Form No.42. Clause 9(1)(b) of Form No.42 in Chapter VI prescribes 11 members as members of the Committee. Accordingly, 11 members were nominated/selected by the Committee. One amongst them was deleted on the objection of the petitioner himself. C.R.P.No.234/2021 14 24. Clause 9 of the Scheme provides for the Managing Committee members to co-opt for any member of the Wafq in case any vacancy arises in the Managing Committee. The term ‘member’ is defined in Chapter 2 Clause IV which reads as follows: “IV. “Member” means Member of Waqf institution whose name is entered in the Register of Members.

25. Thus it becomes clear that member means any member of the General Body. Therefore it is always open for the existing 10 members to co-opt another member to make good the vacancy which arises due to withdrawal of Syed Riyazathulla. Even on that ground the petition fails.

26. At the cost of repetition, it has to be stated that other members of the Waqf by name Syed Shafiur Rahman the applicant in Application No.18/2020 did not challenge the order. Therefore that part of order has attained finality. On that count also, this petition is liable to be dismissed. C.R.P.No.234/2021 15 For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order. Therefore the petition is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE pgg/KSR