Md Shahbaz Qureshi and 2 Ors v. State of Meghalaya and 13 Ors

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG

WA No. 10 of 2023 Date of order: 25.05.2023

Md Shahbaz Qureshi & ors vs The State of Meghalaya & ors Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjib Banerjee, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge

Appearance: For the Appellants : Mr K. Paul, Sr Adv. with

Mr S. Chanda, Adv.

For the Respondents : Mr S. Sengupta, Addl Sr GA

Mr A.H. Kharwanlang, Addl Sr GA [For R 1&2]

Mr S. Jindal, Adv. with

Mr V. Kumar, Adv. [For R 7,8,10,12,13&14]

i) Whether approved for

reporting in Law journals etc.:

ii) Whether approved for publication

in press:

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble, the Chief Justice) (Oral)

Mr S. Jindal represents the respondent Nos. 7, 8, 10, 12, 13 and

14.

¶2Mr S. Sengupta represents the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the key respondents in this case, since the impugned appointments appear to have been made by or at the behest of the State.

¶3An affidavit of service has been filed and Counsel for the appellants submits that the other unrepresented respondents have also been served. Serial No. 01 Regular List

¶4The short grievance of the appellants herein is that despite the appellants challenging the appointment of members of the Waqf Board on the ground that they do not possess the qualifications under the Waqf Act, 1995, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been dismissed on the ground of the appellants herein as petitioners before the court of the first instance not having the requisite locus standi.

¶5There is no doubt that the court has to guard against passers-by, interlopers and busybodies wasting court time or raising reckless issues which need not be addressed by the court. However, when the court is in receipt of information that persons not qualified, in accordance with law, to occupy certain public positions have been anointed to the posts, the court has merely to recognise the petitioner as an informant and ascertain the veracity of the matter. Clearly, the writ petitioners in this case were seeking the issuance of a writ in the nature of quo warranto in challenging appointments of the members of the Waqf Board on the ground of lack of qualification.

¶6Even if the court were to be minded not to allow the writ petitioners to participate any further in the matter, the court would, ordinarily, be obliged to ascertain the veracity of the matter and ensure that members occupying statutory posts are appointed in accordance with law and as per the qualifications necessary therefor.

¶7Since the writ petition in this case was dismissed at the outset and without any exercise being undertaken to ascertain as to whether the members of the Waqf Board possessed the requisite qualifications, the order impugned dated March 6, 2023 is set aside and the matter is restored before the Single Bench with a request to look into the merits thereof in accordance with law.

¶8WA No. 10 of 2023 succeeds to the limited extent as indicated.

¶9There will, however, be no order as to costs.

(W. Diengdoh) (Sanjib Banerjee)

Judge Chief Justice

Meghalaya

25.05.2023 "Sylvana PS"