Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 317
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
Nawab Syed Abdul Wahab – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 33052 of 2021
Decided On : 03-06-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Vedula Srinivas.
For the Respondents: B. Jitender, Asad Hussain.
IMPORTANT POINT
Eligibility for nomination to the Salar Jung Museum Board is restricted to direct descendants of Nawab Salar Jung I, as per the Salar Jung Museum Act, 1961.
Headnote:
Salar Jung Museum - Petition for Nomination - Salar Jung Museum Act, 1961 - Sections 5(1)(f), 7(2) - The court interpreted the provisions of the Salar Jung Museum Act, emphasizing the eligibility criteria for board membership, which must be a direct descendant of Nawab Salar Jung I, thus upholding the rejection of the petitioner's claim.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to be nominated to the Salar Jung Museum Board, claiming eligibility as a family member of Nawab Salar Jung III. The respondents rejected this claim, stating the petitioner was not a direct descendant of the relevant family line, as Nawab Salar Jung III died unmarried.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not belong to the family of Nawab Salar Jung III, as defined by the Act, and upheld the respondents' decision to reject the petitioner's nomination request based on the interpretation of the relevant legal provisions.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is eligible for nomination to the Salar Jung Museum Board under Section 5(1)(f) of the Salar Jung Museum Act, 1961.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that only a direct descendant of Nawab Salar Jung I qualifies for nomination to the Board, as Nawab Salar Jung III had no direct heirs, thus affirming the respondents' decision.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
1. Heard learned senior Counsel Sri Vedula Srinivas representing learned counsel Smt Vedula Chitralekha appearing on behalf of Petitioner, Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, Sri B.Jitender, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 and Sri Asad Hussain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 3.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:
“......to declare the action of the 1st Respondent in rejecting the representation of the petitioner, dated 14.12.2020 vide proceedings in F.No. 18/4/2020.M.I., dated19.08.2021 and to declare the Gazette Notification, dated 05.02.2019 issued by the 1st respondent nominating the 3rd Respondent to the Office of the 2nd Respondent Board U/s.5(1)(f) of the Salar Jung Museum Act, 1961 as arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal and to consequently set aside the same and to issue a consequential direction to nominate the Petitioner to the 2nd Respondent Board U/s.5(1)(f) of the Salar Jung Museum Act, 1961 and pass such other order or orders.....”
PERUSED THE RECORD:
3. Order impugned dated 19.08.2021 vide Proceedings No. F.No. 18/4/2020.M.I. of the 1st respondent, reads as under:
“I am directed to refer to your representation dated 14.12.2020 requesting this Ministry to include you in the Salarjung Museum Board as a heir & family member of late Nawab Salarjung Bahadur III. You have mentioned that you are suitable and eligible to be nominated as member in Salar Jung Museum Board being member of Salar Jung family through your father Nawab Syed Abdullah and your application be considered pursuant to the judgement and decree in OS 156 of 1980.
You had also filed a Writ Petition No. 14716 of 2021 in High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad in this regard. Hon'ble High Court of Telangana while disposing of the Writ Petition at admission stage has directed the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 14.12.2020 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
The representation dated 14.12.2020 submitted by you has been examined in consultation with Salar Jung Museum. In this context, it is informed that the said decree and judgment is related to compromise between the heirs/successors of Nawab Salar Jung III. Here it is pertinent to mention that Late Nawab Salar Jung III had never married and the claim was for the properties left behind by Salar Jung Bahadur. This was spelt out in the decree wherein the petitioner is represented by his mother and guardian Putin Begum and this is related to share in assets/properties and not related to nomination as member of Salar Jung Museum Board.
The Salarjung Museum Act 1961 (No. 26 of 1961) was promulgated by Central government on 19.05.1961.Section 5 of Act mentioned about the person to function in the Board and section 5[1](f) mentioned about nomination of family of the late Nawab Salarjung Bahadur in the Board. The said nomination is to be notified by the Central Government in the Gazette by Ministry of Culture.
Your representation for nominating you as member of the Salar Jung Museum Board has not been proved by the document presented by you with the representation. Whatever document you have presented to this Ministry is on dispute of property and not related to nomination as member of Salar Jung Museum Board.
Further, on examination of your Writ Petition mentioned above, received with the copy of Judgment, it is seen that there is a misrepresentation of the truth at Para 4 of affidavit by claiming that “the term of family member appointee has ended in 2013 and no valid nomination has been made by the GOI to the Board in the quota meant for the family members of Salar Jung who died on 02.03.1949 and the said office is lying vacant since several years.” In this context it is mentioned here Nawab Ahtheram Ali Khan has been nominated as Member from 1997 and thereafter during 2003, 2008, 2013 and 2019. He is still in the ex
