Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 547 (JHR)

Md. Salim v. State of Jharkhand

2019-02-25

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2019
ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the Memo No. JAC/Madarsa/920/08/ Section 4/152/16/ Ranchi dated 10.05.2016 issued by the Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 has illegally been appointed as Head Moulvi and Secretary respectively in the institution in question. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Madarsa in question was established in the name of Late Sheikh Badruddin, father of the petitioner, the area of land was donated for the said purpose, in pursuance to the meeting held on 03.03.1973, then Respondent No. 5 was made the Secretary of the non-executing Committee, whose terms has expired sometime in the month of March, 2016 and thereafter the Respondent No. 5 was made to continue the work as Secretary, including Respondent No. 6 who was the Head Moulvi of the Madarsa, Respondent No. 6 has conveyed a meeting on 16.03.2016 of the donar Members of Madarsa and considering that the Respondent No. 7 is a donar member, has been elected as Secretary of the Madarsa vide order impugned. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued at length by submitting that the Respondent No. 7 is not a donar, rather on the basis of the forged and fabricated documents, he has been treated as a donar, Respondent No. 6 based upon the said forged document has selected him as a Secretary of the Madarsa, therefore, the said order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. Mrs. Richa Sanchita, learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand Academic Council, has submitted on the strength of the counter affidavit, in pursuance to the meeting held on 16.03.2016 and with full majority, respondent No. 7 as donar members for organizing of new Managing Committee of the said Madarsa, term of the said Committee is going to be expired sometime in the month of June, 2019, it has been stated therein that the decision taken by virtue of the meeting held on 16.03.2016 was forwarded by the Pradhan Moulvi of Madarsa on 29.03.2016 before the Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi in pursuance to the provision made under the Jharkhand Academic Council Act, 2006. The said election was approved, by the Jharkhand Academic Council through its competent authority after going through the details of the members of the said Managing Committee in which name of the respondent No. 7 as donar member was there and name of one Md. Moizuddin and Md. Sabiuddin as teacher’s representative along with other members. It has further been stated therein that the Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi, has reflected in the said decision that after issuance of the said notification the earlier organized Managing Committee, will be dissolved and therefore there is no illegality in the said election of the respondent No. 7 as the donar members. 5. The authorities of the Jharkhand Academic Council after going through the details of the list of the Managing Committee, has found that there is no illegality in the order impugned. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, it is evident that the petitioner who claims to be the legal heir of the donar and the land upon which the Madarsa in question, has been established since from the month of March, 1973, he has acted as Secretary after being elected but thereafter one another person has been elected as Secretary whose term has expired in the month of March, 2016, thereafter, the election has been conducted for donar members and after election, respondent No. 7 has found to be successful vide order impugned. 7. The petitioner’s claim is that the Respondent No. 7 is not the donar member, therefore, his election of donar member cannot be said to be legal. 8. It is evident from the pleading made in this writ petition that the petitioner has tried to made out claim that the respondent No. 7 has been treated to be donar member on the basis of forged and fabricated documents but which document is forged and fabricated, however stand has been taken at paragraph-9 of the writ petition but no valid documents have been annexed to support the said contention, as such the statement made at Paragraph-9, is vague. 9. It is settled that on that basis of allegation of commission of forgery, no positive direction has been passed by the writ court, unless the intent of fraud is proved through cogent evidence. 10. 9. It is settled that on that basis of allegation of commission of forgery, no positive direction has been passed by the writ court, unless the intent of fraud is proved through cogent evidence. 10. The petitioner further claims that he is donar of the land, therefore, he has right to be a donar member to substantiate the said argument, the provision of Jharkhand Council (Amendment) Act, 2006 as has been relied upon wherein provision under Section 7.6 (VI) it has been stipulated that:- “one member should be elected by any from donar who has donated at least 25,000/-to the institution.” 11. This statutory provision provides that there can be more one donars, hence it is not that only one donar will be in the institution and if the petitioner is claiming to be one donar by virtue of donation of land of his fore-fathers that does not mean that the other will not be appointed as the donar member, if there status is of donar member. 12. It is also evident from the counter affidavit that it is the admission on the part of the petitioner that meeting was conducted on 16.03.2016, on the basis of the list of the donar members, in which the name of respondent No. 7 finds mentioned. 13. It is not pleaded in the writ petition that the list containing the name of respondent no. 7 has ever been questioned by the petitioner, meaning thereby the said document is unimpeachable unless questioned and answered against the respondent No. 7 and when it has not been questioned it will be treated to be acceptable document. 14. It has further evident from the pleading made in the counter affidavit that the majority of the members, the respondent No. 7 has been appointed as the donar members on the basis of the list of the donar members, the said election has been approved by the Jharkhand Academic Council, under the provision of Jharkhand Academic Council Act, 2006/Notification. 15. In view thereof, on the basis of facts and circumstance of this case it is stated hereinabove, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the decision taken as per the order impugned. 16. Accordingly this writ petition fails, and stands dismissed. Writ Petition dismissed.