Bombay High Court directs elections for Buldhana Waqf Trust in two months

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has intervened in a long-running dispute over the validity of trustee elections for the Choti Masjid Trust in Buldhana district, after rival factions clashed over the interpretation of its governing scheme framed in 1989.

The controversy arose when the Waqf Tribunal invalidated the 2019 election of trustees and set aside the Maharashtra State Waqf Board’s approval of their change report, prompting the elected trustees to seek relief from the High Court. 

Justice Shailesh P. Brahme, disposed of a December 11, 2023, application and directed that fresh elections be completed within two months under clarified norms.

The applicants, Abdul Rahman Abdul Razzaque and others, were elected on February 25, 2019, for a five-year term. Their change report was approved by the Waqf Board on September 1, 2021. However, the Choti Masjid Trust challenged this approval, alleging irregularities such as a defective voters’ list and the appointment of an Election Officer without jurisdiction.

Acting on this challenge, the Waqf Tribunal on June 16, 2023, rejected the applicants’ plea and allowed the trust’s application, effectively nullifying the 2019 election. The applicants then approached the High Court seeking interpretation of ambiguous clauses in the scheme and recognition of their tenure.

Advocate Ameet R. Vaidya, for the applicants, argued, “The Tribunal overlooked the resolution dated December 22, 1989, and in view of clause 27 of the scheme, the resolution has a binding force in the absence of any rules or regulations to regulate the elections. The Tribunal should have upheld the election of the applicants.”

He described clauses 8(C) and 8(D) as “autocratic in nature” and urged the Court to interpret them “so that they would become enforceable and practicable,” adding that the Waqf Board would take time to modify the scheme. 

Advocate S. S. Kazi, representing the Choti Masjid Trust, countered, “It is the function of the Board to formulate the scheme, and the Tribunal could not have assumed such powers. Respondent No. 2—the Board—approved the change report of the applicants through a non-speaking order, which is perverse.”

He supported the Tribunal’s order and sought directions for the Board to decide pending applications for amendment to the scheme. Advocate N. E. Deshmukh, for respondent nos. 2 and 3, also termed clauses 8(C) and 8(D) “ambiguous and autocratic” and referred to Section 69 of the Waqf Act, 1995. 

The Judge observed that the scheme framed on July 10, 1989, lacked election rules, leaving everything to clauses that were “ambiguous.” He noted, “The purport of the Scheme is clear as to the qualifying age of the voters. It is not the case that the voters aged 21 and above are not available. Any other interpretation or the norms stipulating qualified age as 18 years is not possible to be countenanced.”  

The Court clarified that the term “trustee” in clause 8(C) should be read to include members or voters of the trust and defined the qualifying place of residence as Peth Ahmedpur village and its surrounding vicinity, including Amboda Naka and nearby landmarks. 

The Judge emphasized that these clarifications would serve as a stopgap arrangement until the Waqf Board frames or modifies the scheme under Section 69 of the Waqf Act. He directed that the election process be completed within two months, following the existing scheme and the Court’s interpretation, notwithstanding any pending applications for modification. He further stated that the Waqf Board must decide any applications for amendment or modification of the scheme “on its own merits.” 

“The explanation or clarification in the foregoing paragraphs would facilitate a free and transparent election without any confusion. Till the respondent no.2 — Board formulates a new Scheme or modifies the earlier Scheme, the above Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) shall regulate the elections,” the Court noted and disposed of the matter.