1964 (11) TMI 124 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Majlis or Sadr to direct the Mutwalli to produce accounts and pass orders for periods prior to the enforcement of the Act.
2. Jurisdiction of the Majlis or Sadr to remove the appellant from the office of Mutwalli.
3. Jurisdiction of the Majlis or Sadr to appoint a temporary Mutwalli.
4. Constitutionality of sections 27 and 32 of the Bihar Waqfs Act, 1947.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction to Direct Production of Accounts and Pass Orders for Periods Prior to the Act:
The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Majlis or Sadr to direct the production of accounts and pass orders for periods before the Bihar Waqfs Act, 1947 came into force. The Additional District Judge held that the Sadr was competent to pass the order of removal based on disobedience of orders passed prior to the enforcement of the amending Act. The High Court upheld this decision, rejecting the appellant's contention that the amending Act could only operate prospectively from its date of enforcement.

2. Jurisdiction to Remove the Appellant from the Office of Mutwalli:
The appellant was removed from the office of Mutwalli on grounds of mismanagement, misappropriation, and other charges. The Additional District Judge found that the Sadr had the jurisdiction to remove the appellant. The High Court endorsed this view, noting that the Majlis had the power to remove a Mutwalli for wilful disobedience of its orders under section 27(2)(h)(iii) of the Act. The appellant's argument that the amendment conferring this power was not retrospective was dismissed, with the Court clarifying that the power could be exercised based on conduct prior to the amendment.

3. Jurisdiction to Appoint a Temporary Mutwalli:
The Additional District Judge initially held that the appointment of Maulvi Mohammad Shoeb as a temporary Mutwalli was without jurisdiction as it required ratification by the District Judge under section 32. However, the High Court reversed this decision, stating that section 32 allowed the Majlis to make temporary appointments without prior permission or subsequent assent from the District Judge. The High Court clarified that the words "subject to any order by the competent court" meant that the appointment would endure until a contrary order was passed by a competent court.

4. Constitutionality of Sections 27 and 32 of the Bihar Waqfs Act:
The appellant challenged the constitutionality of sections 27 and 32 of the Act, arguing that they violated his fundamental rights under Articles 19, 25, 26, and 31 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed these contentions, noting that the provisions of the Waqfs Act were in the public interest. The Court also referenced a previous judgment (Bashiruddin Ashraf v. State of Bihar, 1957 CriLJ 1023) which upheld the validity of section 58 of the Act. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's assessment, emphasizing that the powers conferred on the Majlis and the Sadr were constitutional and necessary for the proper administration of Waqf properties.

Additional Points:
The Supreme Court addressed procedural issues raised by the appellant, including allegations of bias and malafides against the Sadr and the Majlis. The Court found that the appellant had a fair trial and that the findings of mismanagement and misconduct were well-supported by evidence. The Court also criticized the practice of raising new arguments on appeal without first bringing them to the High Court's attention.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decisions of the Additional District Judge and the High Court. The Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Majlis and the Sadr to remove the appellant and appoint a temporary Mutwalli, and found no constitutional infirmity in sections 27 and 32 of the Bihar Waqfs Act. The appeal was dismissed with costs.