Meghalaya High Court Junks Plea Challenging Reconstitution Of Meghalaya Waqf Board, Says Petitioners Lack Locus

The petitioners had contended that the newly constituted Meghalaya Waqf Board is violative of the provisions contained in Section 14 of the Waqf Act, 1995, which has stipulated that the composition of members of the Board would include Muslim members of Parliament, Muslim members of State Legislature and Mutawallis and so on and so forth.

Contesting the same, the respondents raised a plea with regard to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the petitioners have no locus to maintain their claim. The counsel for the respondents submitted that the writ petitioners can in no manner be described as aggrieved persons, inasmuch as, no legal injury has been inflicted upon them.

In order to demonstrate their locus, the petitioners argued that Section 3(k)(i) and (ii) of Waqf Act gives them the right to assail such actions of the State.

The counsel contended that as per the provisions, any person who has a right to offer prayers or to perform any religious rite in a mosque, idgah, etc., has been defined as a person interested in a waqf by the Act itself and since all the waqfs in the State come under the general superintendence of the Waqf Board, the constitution of such a board is of vital interest to the writ petitioners.

Justice H. S. Thangkhiew observed that the petitioners have made a challenge to the constitution of the Board, but have not demonstrated, or brought on record any materials to establish their locus, but by oral submissions have placed reliance upon the provisions of the Waqf of Act, 1995 to maintain their prayer made in the writ petition.

To examine as to who is "a person interested in a waqf”, the court pointed towards Sec 3 of the Act which defines a person interested as one who has a right to offer prayers or perform religious rites in a mosque, idgah, etc., or is a descendant of the Waqif or the Mutawalli. However, the court also noted that, the definition specifically limits a person interested to be “person interested in a waqf” which would mean to a specific waqf estate and its connected institutions.

Elaborating further, the court said that the collective perusal of Section 22 & Sec 70 of the Waqf Act makes it amply clear that the definition of a "person interested in a waqf", cannot be stretched and accepted to mean a person interested in the constitution of the Waqf Board.

"This in the view of this Court, is because of the explicit definition in clause 3(k) which limits the person to a certain waqf estate and whose remedy would be contained only in Section 70," the bench said, while dismissing the petition.

Case Title: Md. Shahbaz Qureshi & Anr. Vs State Of Meghalaya.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Meg) 12

Click Here To Read/Download Order