DAUD HASSAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has challenged the validity of the office order dated July 26, 1994 issued in the light of the order of the Chairman of the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, dated July 22, 1994, according approval to a new managing committee of Madarsa Noorul Basat Gangadda in the district of Sahebganj (now Pakur). The order has been challenged on the ground that in terms of the provisions of Section 7(2)(n) of the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board Act, 1981 (in short, The Act'), it is the Madarsa Board constituted under the said Act which is competent to accord approval to the managing committee of a Madarsa and not the Chairman.

(2.) Counsel for the Madarsa Board as also Respondent No. 8 submitted that section 13(3) of the Act empowers the Chairman to make inspection of a Madarsa or other institution affiliated with the Board and pase appropriate orders. It was stated that in the instant case the impugned order was passed on the complaint in regard to illegal, and improper appointments of ineligible and unsuitable persons by an illegally constituted managing committee. Counsel for the Respondents, curiously enough, as a matter of fact, took the stand that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Patna V/s. Madarsa Hanifa Arabic College, Jamalia and Ors.,1990 1 PLJR(SC) 61 holding the provisions of Clause (n) of Section 7(2) of the Act to be ultra vires, strictly speaking, the Board itself has no such power. It was stated that the Managing Committee of a Madarsa is to be constituted by the residents of the locality in which the Board and/or the Chairman has no discretion. Managing Committees are approved by the Board in a routine manner.

(3.) Section 13 of the Act provides for the powers and functions of the Chairman Sub-section (5) thereof lays down that the Chairman shall have the power to visit and inspect the Madarsa and other institutions affiliated with the Board or cause such inspection to be made by persons as may be authorised by him. In my opinion, the power vested in the Chairman under Section 13(3) can be exercised only for effectuating the objects of the Act. But it is limited to making inspection etc. It does not authorise him to pass final orders. Sub-section (4) of Section 13, no doubt, confers power upon the Chairman to take such action as he deems fit but that can be done only when he is satisfied that an emergency has arisen requiring him to take immediate action involving exercise of the power vested in the Board by the Act. Even in such a situation he has to report the action taken by him to the Board for its approval in the next meeting. It may be stated here that the counsel for neither the Madarsa Board nor Respondent No. 8 took shelter of provisions of section 13(4).