JUDGMENT : 1. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 13.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.212 of 2020, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been dismissed declining to interfere with the notification as contained in memo no.111 dated 09.01.2020, by which, the constitution of the Jharkhand State Haj Committee vide notification no.2307 dated 09.07.2018, has been rescinded with immediate effect with a decision to reconstitute the said Committee separately. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:- The background of the case is that one Shamim Ali had preferred a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No.3462 of 2018 challenging the notification no.2307 dated 09.07.2018 issued under the signature of Under Secretary, Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, whereby, the State Haj Committee was constituted consisting of 15 members on the ground of constitution being in the teeth of the parent Act. During the pendency of the writ petition, Mr. Ajit Kumar, the then learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand, on instruction, has submitted that in view of the facts pleaded in the writ petition, the State Government shall reconstitute the Haj Committee, accordingly, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of as there was no reason to further proceed in the said writ petition. Subsequently, the State Government through the Department of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Minority and Backward Welfare, issued the impugned notification on 09.01.2020 dissolving the State Haj Committee which was constituted vide notification no.2307 dated 09.07.2018. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the resolution of the Haj Committee and its reconstitution, has approached to this Court by invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being W.P.(C) No.212 of 2020 seeking therein a direction for quashing of the order dated 09.01.2020. The aforesaid case was contested by the State respondent on the ground that there was no illegality in reconstitution of the State Haj Committee. The writ petition was, accordingly, dismissed, against which, the present intra-court appeal has been filed. 3. Mr. The aforesaid case was contested by the State respondent on the ground that there was no illegality in reconstitution of the State Haj Committee. The writ petition was, accordingly, dismissed, against which, the present intra-court appeal has been filed. 3. Mr. Indrajeet Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant writ petitioner has submitted that under the statute i.e., Haj Committee Act, 2002 there is no provision of dissolution of Committee, once the Haj Committee was constituted, save and except, the provision of Section 22 of the Haj Committee Act, 2002 which speaks about constitution of the State Committee and as such, in absence of any provision of dissolution of the Committee, the action of the State Government in dissolving the Haj Committee vide notification dated 09.01.2020, is without any authority of law. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that this aspect of the matter has not been appreciated in right perspective, as such, serious infirmity has been committed, hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. Per Contra, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent State of Jharkhand has submitted that the action of the State Government in dissolving the Haj Committee vide notification dated 09.01.2020, cannot be said to suffer from an error, reason being that, the constitution of the aforesaid Committee vide notification dated 09.07.2018 was patently illegal and not in accordance with the parent Act, the Haj Committee Act, 2002 and when this fact was brought to the notice of this Court by filing the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.3462 of 2018, the then learned Advocate General representing the State of Jharkhand has submitted before this Court that the irregularity which has been committed will be rectified by dissolving the Haj Committee which was constituted vide notification no.2307 dated 09.07.2018 and a fresh Haj Committee will be reconstituted which will be in consonance with the statutory provision, as contained under the provision of Haj Committee Act, 2002. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by taking into consideration the aforesaid submission and thereafter, the Haj Committee which was constituted not in accordance with the statutory provision as contained under the Haj Committee Act, 2002 by dissolving it vide notification dated 09.01.2020 and thereafter, a new Haj Committee has been constituted. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by taking into consideration the aforesaid submission and thereafter, the Haj Committee which was constituted not in accordance with the statutory provision as contained under the Haj Committee Act, 2002 by dissolving it vide notification dated 09.01.2020 and thereafter, a new Haj Committee has been constituted. The plea has been taken on behalf of the State that merely because there is no provision of dissolution of the Haj Committee, it cannot be said that if any illegality has been committed in constituting the Committee, the State cannot take any decision, rectifying the mistake by dissolving such Committee for the purpose of its constitution afresh, so that, it may be in consonance with the statutory provision as contained under the Haj Committee Act, 2002. The learned Advocate General, in order to strengthened the argument, has submitted that even accepting that there is no provision under the Haj Committee Act, 2002 for dissolving the Haj Committee but the State Government can well exercise such power in view of the provision of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act,1897, which confers power upon the appointing authority/body to recall the order of appointment/constitution, if such appointment/constitution has not been made in consonance with the statutory provision and therefore, in absence of any provision under the Haj Committee Act, if the State Government has acted by taking such decision for dissolution of the Haj Committee vide notification dated 09.01.2020, which cannot be said to suffer from any illegality, by taking into consideration the provision of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897., Learned Advocate General, in the backdrop of the aforesaid fact, has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge, therefore, requires no inference. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also considered the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 6. Before entering into the factual aspect of the case, it requires to refer herein that the Act has been notified, by virtue of Act No.35 of 2002 to be known as “Haj Committee Act, 2002” (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2002) in order to establish the Haj Committee of India and State Haj Committees for making arrangements for the pilgrimage of Muslims for Haj, and for matters connected therewith. The aforesaid Act contains a definition of ‘Committee’ as under Section 2(c) which means that the Haj Committee of India constituted under Section 3, while under Section 2(h) the State Committee has been defined which means a State Haj Committee constituted under Section 18 and includes Joint State Committee. Thus, Section 18 confers power for composition of State Committee and as such, reference of Section 18 is required to be made herein, which reads as under:- “18.Composition of State Committee.-(1) A State Committee shall consist of sixteen members, to be nominated by the State Government, namely:- (i) three members from the Muslim members of- (a) Parliament representing the State; (b) State Legislative Assembly; and (c) Legislative Council, where it exists; (ii) three members from Muslim members representing local bodies in the State; (iii) three member having expertise in Muslim, theology and law including one who shall be a Shia Muslim; (iv) five members representing Muslim voluntary organisations working in the fields of public administration, finance, education, culture or social work; (v) the Chairperson of the State Wakf Board; and (vi) Executive Officer of the State Committee, who shall be the ex officio member of the State Committee: Provided that a Committee for any Union territory or a Joint State Committee shall consist of such number of members as may be prescribed. (2) In case where there is no Muslim member in any of the categories mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (1), or where there is no Legislative Council in a State, nomination may be made in such manner as may be prescribed.” It is evident from the provision of Section 18(1) that the State Committee shall consist of sixteen members, to be nominated by the State Government, namely:- (i) three members from the Muslim members of- (a) Parliament representing the State; (b) State Legislative Assembly; and (c) Legislative Council, where it exists; The State Government has constituted a Haj Committee vide notification no.2307 dated 09.07.2018 which consists of 15 members. Thus, it is evident that Section 18 of the Act, 2002 stipulates about constitution of Committee consisting of 16 members but the State Haj Committee constituted vide notification dated 09.07.2018 was having with 15 members. Thus, it is evident that Section 18 of the Act, 2002 stipulates about constitution of Committee consisting of 16 members but the State Haj Committee constituted vide notification dated 09.07.2018 was having with 15 members. Further, it appears from the pleading made in the writ petition more particularly at paragraph-9 thereof that the State Government in pursuant to the Haj Committee Act, 2002 is required to constitute 16 members Haj Committee out of them, 14 has to be nominated from Muslim community and two members i.e., person of the Wakf Board and Executive Officer of the State Committee shall be Ex. Officio Member of the State Haj Committee. But the Committee was constituted by the aforesaid notification in violation of Section 18 of the Haj Committee Act, 2002 as 15 members have been nominated by the State Government instead of 16 members, as also the provision of Section 18(i) of the Act, 2002, has also been violated, since, only two persons namely, (i) Mukhtar Abaas Naqvi, Members of Parliament and (ii) Mohammad Alamgir Alam, member of Legislative Assembly have been appointed, whereas, there must be three members in the said category and the name of Dr. Irfan Ansari has not been nominated in spite of the fact that the State Government has to nominated three names under sub section (1)(i) of Section 18 of the Act, 2002. Further, one Shia Muslim has been nominated and so far as other two nominees are concerned, it is not clear whether they fulfilled the criteria and whether they have expertise in Muslim theology and in law. Therefore, the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.3462 of 2018 has been filed. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the then Advocate General appearing for the State, on instruction, submitted that in view of the facts pleaded in the writ petition [W.P.(C) No.3462 of 2018], the State Government shall reconstitute the Haj Committee, basis upon which, the writ petition was disposed of. The State has, thereafter, came out with fresh notification of dissolution of the aforesaid Committee which was dissolved vide notification as contained in memo no.111 dated 09.01.2020. Further, a new Committee has been constituted vide notification no.2403 dated 27.11.2020. The State has, thereafter, came out with fresh notification of dissolution of the aforesaid Committee which was dissolved vide notification as contained in memo no.111 dated 09.01.2020. Further, a new Committee has been constituted vide notification no.2403 dated 27.11.2020. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with dissolution of the old Committee and replacement of it by a fresh Committee, has approached to this Court by filing the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.212 of 2020, wherein, the learned Single Judge after considering the fact that the constitution of the Committee vide notification dated 09.07.2018 has been accepted to be not in consonance with the Act, 2002 by way of an affidavit filed on behalf of the State and as such, refused to interfere with the writ petition while dismissing it. 7. The contention has been raised on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant writ petitioner that there is no provision of dissolution of the Committee once constituted under the Act, 2002, save and except, the statutory provision as contained under Section 22 of the aforesaid Act, 2002 which speaks about reconstitution of the Committee. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that no provision has been made for dissolution of the Committee, however, provision has been made under Section 22 for reconstitution of the State Haj Committee, which reads as under:- “22. Reconstitution of a State Committee.-(1) The State Government shall take or cause to be taken all necessary steps for the reconstitution of a new State Committee at least four months before the expiry of the term of the State Committee. (2) an outgoing member shall be eligible for renomination of the State Committee for not more than two terms: Provided that fifty per cent of the nominees may be re-nominated for a second term in such manner as may be prescribed.” It is evident from the aforesaid provision that the State Government shall take or cause to be taken all necessary steps for the reconstitution of a new State Haj Committee at least four months before the expiry of the term of the State Committee. Sub section (2) of Section 22 speaks about outgoing member shall be eligible for re-nomination of the State Committee for not more than two terms, provided that fifty per cent of the nominees may be re-nominated for a second term in such manner as may be prescribed. Sub section (2) of Section 22 speaks about outgoing member shall be eligible for re-nomination of the State Committee for not more than two terms, provided that fifty per cent of the nominees may be re-nominated for a second term in such manner as may be prescribed. The provision as contained under Section 22, thus, confers power upon the State Government to take exercise for reconstitution of the Committee at least four months before the expiry of the term of the State Committee, meaning thereby, Section 22 confers power upon the State Government that four months in advance before expiry of the term of the State Committee, the State Government will take endeavour for reconstitution of the Committee. However, no such provision for dissolution of the Committee has been made but the question is that if the Committee has been constituted dehors the rule, can it not be incumbent upon the State Government to rectify it by dissolving the said Committee or even if the illegality in constitution of Committee is there, can it be allowed to continue? 9. The answer of this Court will be that if any illegality has been committed in constitution of the Committee, it would be always open for the State Government to rectify otherwise, illegality will be allowed to be perpetuated. 10. It is the settled position of law that illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated and the moment it came to the notice of the State or the competent authority, the same is to be rectified, as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Chaman Lal Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (2014) 15 SCC 715 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court taking reference of the case rendered in Basawaraj & Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer [ (2013) 14 SCC 81 ] at paragraph 16, held as under: “16. More so, it is also settled legal proposition that Article 14 does not envisage for negative equality. In case a wrong benefit has been conferred upon someone inadvertently or otherwise, it may not be a ground to grant similar relief to others. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer [ (2013) 14 SCC 81 ] at paragraph 16, held as under: “16. More so, it is also settled legal proposition that Article 14 does not envisage for negative equality. In case a wrong benefit has been conferred upon someone inadvertently or otherwise, it may not be a ground to grant similar relief to others. This Court in Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer [Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 : AIR 2014 SC 746 ] considered this issue and held as under: (SCC p. 85, para 8) “8.It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of administration impossible. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh [Chandigarh Admn. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of administration impossible. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh [Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh, (1995) 1 SCC 745 ] , Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana [Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2005) 9 SCC 164 ] , K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. [K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P., (2006) 3 SCC 581 ] and Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab [Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2010) 11 SCC 455 ] .)” Herein, Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides power to issue, to include to add to, amend, vary or rescind, notification, orders, rules or bye-laws, then that power includes a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any), to add to amend, vary or rescind any (notifications), orders, rules or bye laws, so issued. It is evident from perusal of the aforesaid provision that the State Government has conferred with the power or any authority of the State Government to recall any decision or modify or amend or rescind which has been taken by the State Government. 11. Learned Advocate General has defended the decision of the State authority in dissolving the Haj Committee constituted vide notification no.2307 dated 09.07.2018 taking aid of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. There is no reason to disagree with the said legal proposition. Even if provision has not been made under the statute and any illegality is there in constitution of the Committee or appointment of the member concerned, it does not mean that the State Government will be a silent spectator, rather, it would be the onerous duty of the State Government to rectify the illegality. In the present case, the State has accepted in the affidavit filed before this Court in writ petition being W.P.(C) No.3462 of 2018 that the constitution of committee vide notification dated 09.07.2018, was not in consonance with the Act, 2002, as per the provision of Section 18 contained therein. In such circumstances, writ petition was disposed of. In the present case, the State has accepted in the affidavit filed before this Court in writ petition being W.P.(C) No.3462 of 2018 that the constitution of committee vide notification dated 09.07.2018, was not in consonance with the Act, 2002, as per the provision of Section 18 contained therein. In such circumstances, writ petition was disposed of. Thereafter, if the Committee constituted vide notification dated 09.07.2018 was dissolved taking a decision for its reconstitution and finally the Haj Committee has been constituted afresh, in our considered view, cannot be said to suffer from an error. Reason being that, the old Committee which admittedly was in the teeth of provision of Section 18 of the Act, 2002, if allowed to be retained, would allow the illegality to be perpetuated, which will not be acceptable. 12. The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the fact in entirety, has refused to interfere with the impugned notification, which according to the considered view of this Court, cannot be said to suffer from an error. 13. In the result, the instant appeal fails and is, dismissed. 14. In consequent to dismissal of this appeal, interlocutory application being I.A. No.4922 of 2020 and I.A.No.1049 of 2021 also stand disposed of.