State Wakf Board likely to be dissolved

The Maharashtra State Wakf Board faces imminent dissolution, as the Bombay High Court on Tuesday said that its constitution is defective and needs to be set aside.

The Maharashtra State Wakf Board faces imminent dissolution, as the Bombay High Court on Tuesday said that its constitution is defective and needs to be set aside.

HT Image

The division bench of justice DK Deshmukh and justice Anoop Mohta found that the board was constituted without taking into consideration relevant data indicating the total number of Muslim religious charitable trusts and their categorisation among Shia and Sunni Wakfs.

The bench is likely to pronounce its verdict on Wednesday. The court deferred its decision to allow additional government pleader Milind More to seek instructions about the arrangements that need to be put in place until the state government undertakes a fresh survey and new a Wakf Board is set up.

The court was hearing several petitions, including one filed by the Anjuman-e-Islam, which challenged the constitution of the state board. Yusuf Muchhala, the counsel for the educational trust, contended that under the Wakf Act, the state was required to undertake a survey of each and every Muslim religious trust, determine if it was a Wakf and take a decision if a composite board or separate boards need to be set up for Shias and Sunnis.

Muchhala pointed out that the charity commissioner had passed a general order with respect to trusts registered by Muslim settlers, without bothering to undertake scrutiny as required by the legislation introduced in 1999, and the state had issued a notification constituting the state board without waiting for relevant data, which is the survey report.

While the notification constituting the state board was issued on January 4, 2002, the survey report was submitted to the government 27 days later, on January 31. This, Muchhala said shows the state had no data about the number of Wakfs to determine whether to form a composite board or two separate boards when it issued the notification.

A counsel for the Wakf Board countered this argument by saying it was the state’s discretion to decide whether to have a composite board or two boards.

This contention failed to impress the judges, who remarked that the state did not have uncontrolled discretion, and it had to cite reasons for its decisions. The bench then proposed to hand over the charge of the Wakfs to the charity commissioner until a fresh survey is complete and a new board constituted. The court accepted the additional government pleader’s request for a day’s time to seek instructions in this regard.