9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (11) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Syed Bashiruddin was the Sadr (Chairman) of the Majlis and Syed Mehdi Hassan was the Nazir-e-Awqaf under section 22. 2. On March 2, 1949 Syed Naziruddin Ashraf (step-brother of the appellant) and some others presented an application for removal of the appellant from Mutwalliship on numerous charges, including mismanagement, misappropriation, wanton waste and dissipation of Waqf property, falsification of accounts, etc. This was registered as Case No. 37 of 1949. An enquiry was made by Mehadi Hassan, who reported on May 25, 1950 to the Majlis that the charges levelled against the appellant were proved. His report was considered by the Majlis at its meeting dated August 20, 1950 and a notice was issued to the appellant to show cause why he should not be removed. He showed cause. The Nazir was directed to submit a second report which he did on October 15, 1950. The appellant was then examined and on November 28, 1950 the Sadr passed an order agreeing with the report of the Nazir and confirming the findings given by the Nazir regarding mis-management etc. An auditor was appointed to check the accounts and he reported on February 8, 1951 that a sum of ₹ 9682/1/3 was due from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be without jurisdiction on the ground that it had to be ratified by the District Judge under section 32 and the appointment was vacated. The new point was that section 27(2)(h)(iii) added by the amending Act, 1951, was not retrospective and could only operate from June 6, 1951, which was stated to be the date from which the amending Act came into force, and that the power of the Majlis could only be exercised in respect of events happening subsequent to that date. This contention of the appellant was rejected. 6. Two appeals were filed against the order of the Additional District Judge by the appellant and Maulvi Md. Shoeb respectively. A revision application was also filed on behalf of the Majlis and Maulvi Md. Shoeb as a matter of abundant caution. The appellant had raised in the High Court as many as 41 grounds : the first five grounds raised the contention that the powers conferred on the Majlis, which formerly belonged to the District Judge, could only operate from June 6, 1951 and as no order or direction of the Majlis was disobeyed after June 6, 1951, the order passed on June 28, 1951 on the old material was illegal and void. Grounds 23 and 29(a) to (f) raised the content ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent is signed and an order of the High Court on such submission obtained before it is raised in appeal. This Court will ordinarily regard the details of the argument given in the judgment of the High Court as correct and will not enter upon an enquiry as to what was or was not argued there. To permit points to be mooted on the plea that they were raised before the High Court but were not considered by it would open the door to endless litigation and this would be destructive of the finality which must attach to the decision of the High Court on matters of fact. The High Court is a Court of Record and unless an omission is admitted or is demonstrably proved this Court will not consider an allegation that there is an omission. The truth of the allegations against the appellant was investigated by the Nazir and the charges were held proved. The report of the Nazir was accepted by the Sadr, the Additional District Judge and the High Court. The appellant has had a very fair trial and it is plain that the appellant cannot be allowed to have the whole issue debated again because he has thought out fresh arguments. 9. This disposes of all questions of fact and we now proceed to consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may 24, 1951 on which date the amending Act received the assent of the Governor of Bihar. Previously these words (omitting orders and ) were included as sub-clause (iv) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 47 as part of the grounds on which the District Judge possessed the power to remove a Mutwalli on the application of the Majlis. In other words, the removal of the Mutwalli on the ground that he had wilfully disobeyed the orders and directions of the Majlis under the Act could be made, after amendment, by the Majlis itself without the intervention of the District Judge. After the amendment the District Judge ceased to possess this power. 11. The contention of the appellant was that as this amendment was not retrospective the power could only be exercised in respect of orders and directions of the Majlis given after the date on which amended Act came into force and not in respect of orders and directions issued previously. According to him, the amending Act is being given retrospective operation which is not permissible. We do not see any force in these contentions. The amendment, no doubt, conferred jurisdiction upon the Majlis to act prospectively from the date of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
