The State's interference in the management of religious denominations must only address law and order, maintaining the autonomy of religious practices and their management according to historical and cultural connections.

JUDGMENT :

KARDAK ETE, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr.D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate and Mr. R. Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 5, and Mr. A. Islam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6.

2. By filing these writ petitions, the petitioners have put to challenge the impugned order dated 24.01.2022, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri, by which it is directed to form a new management committee of Panbari Masjid within 31.01.2022 from seven villages on the basis of immediate geographical contiguity, religious, cultural and social similarity and the notice dated 27.01.2022, issued by the Secretary, Alomganj Gaon Panchayat, fixing the date of meeting for formation of the new committee on 29.01.2022.

3. Having considered that issues involved in both these writ petitions are similar on facts and law, same were heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment and order.

4. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they are the residents of the areas surrounding Panbari Masjid in the District of Dhubri, Assam, falling under Panbari and Alomganj Gaon Panchayats under Gauripur Police Station. The Masjid, historically known as Panbari Rongamati Moszid-E-Nawabi, is stated to have been established in the 15th century and its affairs have traditionally been managed by local residents of both Gaon Panchayats. From time to time, Managing Committees have been constituted for administration of the Masjid. On 10.08.1992, Bye-laws were adopted, providing for an Executive Committee comprises of a President, two Vice-Presidents, General Secretary, Assistant General Secretary, Treasurer, and 11 Working Members, all to be selected from a General Body of 100 members. The tenure of the Executive Committee is three years and a general body meeting is required to be convened before one month of the expiry of each term for constitution of a new Committee.

5. The last Executive Committee was constituted on 30.12.2018 and assumed charge on 31.12.2018, with a tenure up to 30.12.2021. Petitioners No. 3 & 4 (in WP(C) No. 544/2022) claim to have served as Secretary and Assistant Secretary, respectively, while petitioners No. 1, 2 & 5 (in WP(C) No. 544/2022) were General Body members. As the term was near completion, petitioner No. 3 approached the respondent No. 2 seeking permission to convene a general meeting on 26.10.2021 for formation of a new Committee. However, the Respondent No. 2 did not grant permission on the ground of COVID-19 restrictions and advised the petitioners to approach again prior to 15 days of the expiry of the term of the said committee. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 3 again submitted application dated 14.12.2021, seeking permission for holding general body meeting to be held on 26.12.2021, as the existing Committee being due to dissolve automatically on 31.12.2021. However, the said application was kept pending without decision, which, according to the petitioners, resulted in denial of their right to constitute a new Committee.

6. Aggrieved by the alleged inaction, petitioner No. 3, along with the President, approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 7352/2021, wherein this Court, by an order dated 29.12.2021, directed the Respondent No. 2 to consider and dispose of the representation dated 14.12.2021 within 10 days of receipt of the certified