PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Bhopinder Singh Dhillon and G.C.Mittal JJ.
Haji Anwar Ahmed Khan
Versus
Punjab Wakf Board
Civil Writ Petition No. 454 of 1980,
Decided On : MAY 8, 1980
PUNJAB WAKF BOARD - REMOVAL OF CHAIRMAN - NO CONFIDENCE MOTION - PROCEDURE - ELECTION OF NEW CHAIRMAN - JURISDICTION - WAQF ACT, 1954 - PUNJAB WAKF RULES, 1964 - GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897 - COMMON LAW PRINCIPLES - PUBLIC POLICY - GOVERNMENT'S ROLE - RESIGNATION OF CHAIRMAN - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - JUDICIAL REVIEW - WRIT PETITION - RELIEF - ACQUIESCENCE - LEAVE TO APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner Haji Anwar Ahmed Khan, Chairman of the Punjab Wakf Board, challenged his removal from office and the election of Khawaja Khalil Ullah as the new Chairman. The removal was based on a no-confidence motion passed by 8 out of 11 members of the Board. The petitioner argued that there was no provision in the Wakf Act, 1954, or the Punjab Wakf Rules, 1964, for passing a no-confidence motion against the Chairman. He also contended that the procedure for removal should follow Rule 6 of the Rules, which applies to the election of the Chairman in the first meeting of the Board.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the members of the Board had the inherent and implied power to remove the Chairman by a majority of votes, as there was no bar in the statute. The court relied on common law principles and the provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which states that a body with the power to elect its Chairman also has the power to remove him. The court rejected the argument that the Chairman could only be removed under Section 18 of the Act, as this provision dealt with the Government's power to remove a member or Chairman for specific reasons.
Issues: 1. Whether the members of the Punjab Wakf Board had the power to remove the Chairman by passing a no-confidence motion. 2. Whether the procedure for removal of the Chairman should follow Rule 6 of the Punjab Wakf Rules, 1964. 3. Whether the election of the new Chairman was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the members of the Board had the inherent and implied power to remove the Chairman by a majority of votes, as there was no bar in the statute. The court relied on common law principles and the provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which states that a body with the power to elect its Chairman also has the power to remove him. 2. The court held that the procedure for removal of the Chairman should follow Rule 6 of the Rules, which applies to the election of the Chairman in the first meeting of the Board. The court reasoned that there was no other provision in the Act or the Rules that dealt with the procedure for convening a meeting for considering a no-confidence motion against the Chairman. 3. The court held that the election of the new Chairman was invalid as it was not conducted in accordance with Rule 6.
Final Decision: The court quashed the resolution removing the petitioner as Chairman and the subsequent election of Khawaja Khalil Ullah as Chairman. The court directed the Government to convene a meeting in accordance with Rule 6 within 10 days of receiving a representation from the majority of the members, for considering the no-confidence motion and electing a new Chairman if necessary.
BHOPINDER SINGH DHILLON, J.
1. Respondent No. 1 Punjab Wakf Board was constituted under the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Under S.11 of the said Act, Haji Anwar Ahmed Khan petitioner and respondents Nos. 3 to 13 were appointed its members by the Union of India, respondent No. 2, vide notification dated Aug. 11, 1978, copy of which is attached as Annexure-P-1 with the writ petition. The tenure of the office of members so appointed is five years. After the constitution of the Board, the petitioner was elected as Chairman of the respondent Board. On January 20, 1980, a meeting of the Board was convened at Ambala. This meeting was attended by 10 out of 11 members of the Board. Petitioner Haji Anwar Ahmed Khan was removed from the office of the Chairman of the Board in that meeting. 8 members voted for the no confidence motion. The petitioner voted against the no confidence motion and one of the members abstained from voting. After the petitioner was removed from the office of the Chairman of the Board, in the same meeting the members elected Khawaja Khalil Ullah, respondent No. 3 as Chairman. Out of 10 members, nine voted in his favour. The copy of the resolution passed in that meeting is appended as Annexure-P-4 with the writ petition. The petitioner has challenged his removal from the office of the Chairman and so also the election of Khawaja Khalil Ullah, respondent No. 3 as Chairman of the Board against the vacancy caused by his removal on various grounds mentioned in the petition. However, at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced only the following arguments in support of his case :-
(i) That there being no provision in the Act for passing a motion of no confidence against the Chairman once he has been elected, the removal of the petitioner from the office of the Chairman vide impugned resolution is without jurisdiction.
(ii) That even if it be held that a Chairman so elected under the Act could be removed by a vote of no confidence, the procedure for such removal has to be the same as prescribed under Rule 6 of the Punjab Wakf Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), which is applicable to the election of the Chairman which has to take place in the first meeting of the Board held after its constitution.
(iii) That even if the removal of the petitioner be held to be good in law, the election of respondent No. 3 Khawaja Khalil Ullah as Chairman of the Board against the vacancy caused by the removal of the petitioner could not be held in the same meeting and the same could only be held by following a procedure as laid down under Rule 6 of the Rules framed under the Act, which Rule provides for the election of the Chairman after the Board is constituted under the Act.
2. With a view to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant provisions of the Act may be noticed. In view of Section (3)(e) of the Act, unless the context otherwise requires, "member" means a member of the Board and includes the Chairman. S.9 of the Act deals with the incorporation of the Board of Wakfs. Section 10 of the Act provides that the Board shall consist of eleven members and that there shall be a Chairman of the Board, ho shall be elected by the members from amongst themselves. Under S.11 of the Act, the members of the Board shall be appointed by the State Government by a notification in the official Gazette from any one or more of the categories of persons mentioned in this Section. S.12 of the Act is as follows :-
"12. The members of the Board shall hold office for five years. Provided that a member shall, notwithstanding the expiration of his term of lice, continue to hold office until the appointment of his successor is notified in the Official Gazette.
Section 13 of the Act makes provisions for the disqualifications for being appointed or for continuing as member of the Board.
Section 14 of the Act p
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.