Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1373 (PNJ)

Razia Sultana v. Punjab Wakf Board

2008-08-13

AJAY TEWARI

body2008
JUDGMENT Ajay Tewari, J. - This order would dispose of CWP Nos. 2538 of 2005, 3263 of 2005 and 8119 of 2005. The facts are being taken from CWP No. 8319 of 2005. 2. The Punjab Wakf Board (for short the Board) was superseded on 11.11.1981 and thereafter no fresh Board was constituted. 20 years later CWP No. 8166 of 2001 was filed for issuing directions to the respondents to constitute the Board. By Notification dated 1.8.2003 the State of Punjab established a new Punjab Wakf Board (in succession to the erstwhile Board, the jurisdiction of which extended to Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh). By another notification of the same date an Administrator was appointed for the new Board. 3. On 14.5.2004 this Court directed the State of Punjab to constitute the Board within a period of three weeks during the hearing of aforementioned CWP No. 8166 of 2001. It is further pleaded that after a great deal of opposition by the Government, ultimately under the pressure of various Court orders, the Board was constituted by the State of Punjab on 11.11.2004 and the petitioner and five other persons were nominated as members thereof. On 18.11.2004 the petitioner was elected as Chairperson of the Board. Further admitted position which has emerged from the record is that acrimonious relations developed between the Chairperson and the other members. Eight meetings of the Board were held during the period 11.2.200 to 25.5.2005 in which, due to the prevalent divisions, the petitioner did not participate. Matters came to such a pass that the petitioner addressed a representation to the Principal Secretary of Chief Minister, Punjab requesting the Government to dissolve the Board. 4. Ultimately on 15.6.2005 the State Government issued a notice under Section 99(1) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short the Act) requiring all the six members to show cause as to why the Board should not be superseded. All the members filed their replies and subsequently by order dated 13.7.2005 the Board was superseded. It is these meetings and the proceedings thereof which are the subject matter of these petitions. 5. It is the stand of the petitioner that being Chairperson only she was authorized to call meetings. Admittedly no regulations have been framed under the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short the Act). It is these meetings and the proceedings thereof which are the subject matter of these petitions. 5. It is the stand of the petitioner that being Chairperson only she was authorized to call meetings. Admittedly no regulations have been framed under the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short the Act). There is, however, no serious dispute between the parties that the earlier regulations of 1966 would continue to hold the field. Regulations 3, 4, 5 and 7 are relevant for the purpose of deciding this controversy and are thus reproduced hereunder : "3. Time of meeting [Section 68(2)(a)] :- The Board shall ordinarily meet once a month; provided that the Chairman or at least four members may requisition a special meeting. 4. Place of meeting [Section 68(2)(a)] :- The meetings of the Board shall ordinarily be held at its office : Provided that such meetings may also he held at such places in the State as the Chairman or the majority of the members may consider necessary and expedient. 5. Notice of meeting [Section 68(2)(a)] :- (1) The meeting of the Board shall be convened by the Secretary who shall give to every member notice of the date on which and the time and place at which the meeting is to be held at least ten days before the date of the meeting. The date of the meeting shall be fixed by the Secretary in consultation with the Chairman : Provided that in the case of a special meeting such notice may be for a shorter period. (2) Notice of meetings may be sent by post under certificate of posting, or may be served personally. 7. Agenda [Section 68(2)(b)]. - (1) The Secretary shall in consultation with the Chairman prepare the agenda of the business to be transacted at a meeting. (2) A copy of the agenda shall be forwarded to every member at least 7 days before the date fixed fir the meeting. (3) The agenda shall set forth clearly and fully the business to be transacted at the meeting and no business other than that so set forth shall be transacted except with the permission of the Chairman or with the absent of three-fourths of the member present at the meeting." 6. It is in this background that the allegations made by the petitioner have to be tested. Mr. It is in this background that the allegations made by the petitioner have to be tested. Mr. Goyal has submitted before me that after the constitution of the Board on 11.11.2004 the first meeting was scheduled for 18.11.2004 with the following agenda : "Item No. 1 : Election of the Chairman Item No. 2 : To consider the recommendations of the appointment of Sh. Mohd. lzhar Alam, IPS as the C.E.O. of the Board, as additional charge to him." 7. This agenda had been circulated by letter dated 12.11.2004. However, in addition to the circulated agenda, another agenda item was brought into the meeting directly whereby most of the powers of the Board were delegated to the respondent No. 4. The petitioner immediately notified her dissent to this proposal which was, however, passed notwithstanding her objection. This action of the Board was challenged in CWP No. 20287 of 2004 and, on 17.12.2004 the appointment of the respondent No. 4 as Chief Executive Officer was stayed by this Court. Thus, right from the inception differences emerged between the petitioner on the one hand and the other members of the Board. By letter dated 23.12.2004 the petitioner notified the other members that she had fixed a meeting of the Board on 28.12.2004. However, the said meeting had to be aborted as none of the other members attended the same. Thereafter by letter dated 9.2.2005 the respondents Nos. 4 to 7, the other members, called a meeting on 11.2.2005. Immediately on receipt of this communication the petitioner addressed letter dated 10.2.2005 to the said four respondents bringing to their notice that they had no power to call any such meeting but could only requisition a meeting which would have to be fixed by her in consonance with Rules 3, 5 and 7. Despite the opposition of the petitioner the meeting was held and, in view of the stay on the appointment of the respondent No. 4 as Chief Executive Officer necessarily implying that the agenda item No. 3 delegating all powers to him would also be negated another resolution was passed that all the powers earlier conferred on the respondent No. 4 were again delegated to him in his capacity as member. This action was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing CWP No. 2538 of 2005 and the operation of this delegation was again stayed by this Court on 15.2.2005 while issuing notice of motion for 29.3 2005. 8. It is further alleged that without even waiting for the next date another meeting was fixed by the majority members by agenda dated 25.2.2005 to take up, inter alia the following matters : 1. To consider no-confidence motion against the chairperson of the Board. 2. To elect a new Chairperson of the Board. 3. To consider orders of transfers etc. issued by the Chairperson without Boards authority. 9. Since there is no provision in the Act or in the Rules for recalling an elected Chairman by way of no-confidence motion, the petitioner challenged the same by way of filing CWP No. 3263 if 2005 which came up for hearing on 28.2.2005 when notice of motion was issued by this Court for 10.3.2045 and the agenda item relating to the passing of no-confidence motion was stayed by this Court. Thereafter in a series of decisions, all administrative functions and decisions which were taken by petitioner and which statutorily devolved upon her, were sought to be annulled in various other meetings by the majority members Mr. Goyal drew my attention to Rule 24(3) which reads as under :- "All orders of posting and transfers of Class I employees shall be made by the Chairman and those of Class II by the Secretary with the approval of the Chairman and of Class III by the Secretary." 10. In pursuance of this rule the petitioner ordered certain transfers which were cancelled. Further, respondents Nos. 4 to 8 issued orders directing the employees not to hand over any file to any member. Another communication addressed to all the employes of the Board by the respondents Nos. 4 to 8 directed that no administrative orders passed by the petitioner be implemented. The petitioner has also placed on record letter dated 4.4.2005 whereby she was sent the proceedings of some meeting held on 31.3 2005 and she was informed that another meeting of the Board had been fixed on 25.4 2005. By letter dated 10.5.2005 she was informed that the next meeting had been fixed on 25.5.2005. It is Mr. Goyals contention that each of these meetings was illegal. 11. By letter dated 10.5.2005 she was informed that the next meeting had been fixed on 25.5.2005. It is Mr. Goyals contention that each of these meetings was illegal. 11. No written statement has been filed in CWP No. 8319 of 2005. However, reply has been filed in the earlier petitions i.e. CWP No. 3263 of 2005 and CWP No. 2538 of 2005 on behalf of the respondent No. 1-Board. In this reply it is urged that since all the meetings were called by at least four members, the same were within the ambit of Regulations 3, 4, 5 and 7 and could not be called illegal. Further, it was urged that the action of the Board in delegating its powers to the respondent No. 4 was not illegal. It has been stated that in fact, it is the petitioner who was trying to torpedo the working of the Board. 12. In my opinion these petitions must succeed. It is not for the respondents to urge that because they had more than four members, they could call for a meeting as and when they desired. The proper procedure would have been for the members to requisition a meeting by writing to the petitioner. Under Regulation 3, if within a reasonable time of receipt of the said requisition the petitioner did not fix the meeting then of course, by the doctrine of necessity, it may have been open to the members concerned to call meeting on their own. Likewise a meeting to consider a motion of no-confidence was also outside the ambit of the statute. The action of the respondents in annulling even those orders of the petitioner which fell exclusively in her purview, is also legally indefensible. Even though the Board is to be administered by majority decision, yet even the majority cannot ride roughshod over the statute. In the present case it is seen that eight meetings of the Board were called by the majority members within a period of three months. No constructive business was transacted in any of these meetings and the whole emphasis was on eroding the position of the petitioner. It was not expected of a body comprising primarily of scholars and theologians to concentrate only on petty politics and naked power play. It is not to suggest that the petitioner was entirely blameless. No constructive business was transacted in any of these meetings and the whole emphasis was on eroding the position of the petitioner. It was not expected of a body comprising primarily of scholars and theologians to concentrate only on petty politics and naked power play. It is not to suggest that the petitioner was entirely blameless. Surely as the Chairperson of a religious body it was incumbent upon the petitioner to carry along those members who had unanimously voted for her as Chairperson. What I find on the other hand is that almost within minutes of a unanimous election irreconcilable differences arose within the Board. 13. In the light of the above discussion 1 hold that all the eight meetings held by respondents Nos. 4 to 8 between 11.2.2005 and 25.5.2005 are illegal being violative of Regulations 3, 4, and 7. These writ petitions are therefore, allowed with no order as to costs. Petitioners allowed.