RAMESH BHAICHAND MEHTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are Swetamber Jains and have sought an appropriate writ for quashing annexure one which is a notification by the Special officer of the Hindu Religious Trusts Board in respect of the Swetamber Jain Religious Trusts in the State of Bihar. This relates to the preparation of the electoral roll for holding election under Section 8(2) (c) of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act. 1950. (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). It contains a request to all the members of the Swetamber Jain sect, men and women of the age of 21 years or above, later on modified to majority by annexure two. to submit their names, age, father's name and full address within thiry days of the notification. THE petitioners have challenged the validity of this step for preparation of the electoral roll on several grounds such as vagueness in the meaning of the term "Shree Sangh" used in Section 8(2)(c) of the Act as also the requirement of 21 years of age or maioritv as a condition precedent for enrolment as a voter. Another grievance made is that the notification was published in Pradeep and Vishwamitra, two Hindi newspapers having circulation in Bihar only, whereas the Swetambar Jain sect in Bihar scarcely has sot sixteen thousand members out of sixteen lacs who are spread all over India but are to be found predominantly in Maharashtra. Guiarat and Raiasthan.

(2.) IT is relevant to quote Section 8 of the Act which deals with the manner of the constitution of the Board concerned with supervision of the proper management of the trusts. Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act provides for the manner of constitution of the Board for looking after the religious trusts of general Hindu community. IT runs thus:

(3.) THE only ground, however, on which 1 have come to the conclusion that Section 8 (2) (c) is unworkable is that no age-limit of voters is prescribed either in the Act or in any of the rules issued under Section 8 (2) of the Act. THE petitioners' grievance, therefore, that the Special Officer had no power to lay down the age-limit of 21 years or majority for a voter of the Swetamber Jain sect, before he could be regarded as qualified for enrolment, appears to be well-founded. It is true, no doubt, that the petitioners have alleged in the petition that the Shree Sangh (an assembly of Swetamber Jains) of any locality consists of all the adults, men and women of the community, but the word 'adult' is not clearly set out even in the petition. If the word 'adult' is to be taken as synonymous with the word 'major' under the Indian Majority Act, it will be only 18 years of age and not 21 years. But the difficulty is that it is not set out in the Act or in the rules. From this point of view, the notification (An-nexure 1) laying down the condition for enrolment that the applicant must be 21 years old or, at any rate, a major, will have to be struck down as invalid. Thus, Section 8 (2) (c), in so far as it does not speci-cify any age-limit of a member of the Shree Sangh in order to be qualified to be a voter and in so far as Rule 4 bears on this question of election but does not also provide for the minimum age of a voter, must be struck down as invalid. As it is, it is difficult to take any particular age as the minimum limit for qualifying as a voter. This is a situation which in an extreme case may extend to the limit of a minor, who may just be a small child, to be a voter, which cannot be taken to be the intention of the Legislature.