Wakf Act amended Act 2013 - An M.L.A. who was appointed as member of Wakf Board automatically ceases his office on termination of his M.L.A. Tenure - Writ basing on old F.B. judgment is not maintainable = Shaik Subhani.. Petitioner #The Government of Andhra Pradesh,Represented by its Principal Secretary,Minority Welfare Department, Hyderabad ... Respondents = Published in judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=10517

  Wakf Act amended Act 2013 - An M.L.A. who was appointed as member of Wakf Board automatically ceases his office on termination of his M.L.A. Tenure - Writ basing on old F.B. judgment is not maintainable = 
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of
respondent No.2-Wakf Board in orally refusing to let the petitioner to function
as its Member without any written order and preventing him from functioning as
such contrary to the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.23603/2010, dated 23-11-2012, as illegal and arbitrary.
The Full Bench, by its Judgment dated 23-11-2012, on interpretation
of the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short "the Act") held that the
tenure of a Member of the Wakf Board is not co-terminus with the tenure of the
Member of a State Legislative Assembly or the Parliament or the Bar Council, as
the case may be. =

Parliament has amended the Act
under the Wakf (Amendment) Act 2013 (Act No.27 of 2013) introducing sweeping  
changes to the Act and that as per the said Amendment Act, the provisions of
Section 14 of the Act have been amended by adding Explanation II to Section
14(1) thereof whereunder it is declared that a Muslim member who ceases to be a
Member of a State Legislative Assembly shall be deemed to have vacated the 
office of the Member of the Wakf Board. 

A perusal of the copy of the Wakf (Amendment) Act 2013 filed by the petitioner
shows that the same has been published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary)
No.37, on 23-9-2013.  Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the Wakf
(Amendment) Act 2013 has already come into effect.  As a result of the coming
into force of the said Amendment Act, the petitioner cannot claim to continue as
a Member of respondent No.2-Wakf Board as he has admitted that he ceased to be  
an  M.L.A.
        For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY        

W.P.No.31193 of 2013

7-11-2013

Shaik Subhani.. Petitioner

#The Government of Andhra Pradesh,Represented by its Principal
Secretary,Minority Welfare Department, Hyderabad        ... Respondents

!Counsel for petitioner : Sri M. Janardhan Rao

^Counsel for respondent No.1 : Assistant Government Pleader
                               for Minority Welfare
Counsel for respondent No.2 : Sri Shafat Ahmed Khan,
                              Standing Counsel
<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

?CASES REFERRED :    

Nil

The Court made the following:

ORDER:
          This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of
respondent No.2-Wakf Board in orally refusing to let the petitioner to function
as its Member without any written order and preventing him from functioning as
such contrary to the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.23603/2010, dated 23-11-2012, as illegal and arbitrary.
        While the petitioner was a Member of A.P. State Legislative Assembly
(MLA), he was appointed as one of the Members of respondent No.2-Wakf Board.
One person by name Shaik Fareed filed W.P.No.23603/2010 questioning the action
of respondent No.2-Wakf Board in continuing the petitioner as its Member despite
expiry of his tenure as the M.L.A.  The issue was referred to a Full Bench of
this Court.  The Full Bench, by its Judgment dated 23-11-2012, on interpretation
of the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short "the Act") held that the
tenure of a Member of the Wakf Board is not co-terminus with the tenure of the
Member of a State Legislative Assembly or the Parliament or the Bar Council, as
the case may be.  The petitioner pleaded that the Parliament has amended the Act
under the Wakf (Amendment) Act 2013 (Act No.27 of 2013) introducing sweeping  
changes to the Act and that as per the said Amendment Act, the provisions of
Section 14 of the Act have been amended by adding Explanation II to Section
14(1) thereof whereunder it is declared that a Muslim member who ceases to be a
Member of a State Legislative Assembly shall be deemed to have vacated the 
office of the Member of the Wakf Board.  It is however the plea of the learned
Counsel for the petitioner that the said Amendment Act has not been notified as
yet.
        Sri Shafat Ahmed Khan, learned Counsel for respondent No.2-Wakf Board,
submitted that a copy of the Gazette of India, filed by the petitioner, itself
would negate the plea of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
A perusal of the copy of the Wakf (Amendment) Act 2013 filed by the petitioner
shows that the same has been published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary)
No.37, on 23-9-2013.  Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the Wakf
(Amendment) Act 2013 has already come into effect.  As a result of the coming
into force of the said Amendment Act, the petitioner cannot claim to continue as
a Member of respondent No.2-Wakf Board as he has admitted that he ceased to be  
an  M.L.A.
        For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
        As a sequel to the dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.38745/2013 for
interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

________________________  
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
07-11-2013

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.