Summary
The State cancelled a nominated member’s appointment to the Maharashtra Waqf Board, which had been expressed to continue for five years or until further orders, whichever was earlier. The Court upheld cancellation and dismissed the member’s writ petition. Although it agreed that the Board was not a tribunal requiring the asserted Chief Minister’s approval, the statutory five-year tenure and removal provisions did not invalidate cancellation of this nomination on the facts.
Issues
- Whether the statutory tenure and removal provisions prevented cancellation of this nominated member’s appointment.
- Whether the Waqf Board was a tribunal for the asserted approval requirement under the Rules of Business.
Provisions considered
- Sections 14 and 15, Waqf Act, 1995Distinguished nomination from election and considered the statutory tenure alongside the express terms of this nomination. (¶ 8-15)
- Section 20, Waqf Act, 1995Held inapplicable because the impugned action cancelled the nomination rather than removed the member under this provision. (¶ 16)
Held
- The Board was not a tribunal for the approval requirement invoked under Rule 15, item 23 of the Rules of Business. The High Court’s conclusion on that distinct question was correct. (¶ 7)
- Section 15’s five-year term did not, in these circumstances, prevent cancellation of an appointment expressly made for five years or until further orders, whichever was earlier. The Court distinguished nominated membership from elected membership. (¶¶ 8-12, 14-15)
- No factual foundation supported the finding of arbitrariness. Reliance on the absence of reasons and the statutory tenure alone did not sustain interference with this cancellation; the appointing power included cancellation here. (¶ 13-15)
- The cancellation was not removal under section 20, so the statutory grounds and process for removal did not govern the impugned action. (¶ 16)
Result
State appeal allowed; the High Court’s judgment was set aside and the first respondent’s writ petition dismissed.