SARDAR GURU DAYAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both these writ applications the interpretation of Section 5 (b) of the Bihar State Minority Commission Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') falls for consideration. Section 4 provides for nomination of a Chairman, two Vice Chairman and maximum of eight Members of the Commission by the State Government. Section 5(a) stipulates a term of three years for such nominated persons from the date they assume the charge of their office. Section 5(b) which is relevant for the present controversy is necessary to be set out below:

(2.) SECTION 13 of the Act provides for filling up of vacancy or change in constitution of the Commission. Section 17 of the Act provides for submission of annual consolidated report of its performance and functions to the State Government.

(3.) BOTH the petitioners were issued identical show cause notices for their removal on 2.3.2006. The notice stated that the present Chairman was in occupation since 1995 for the fourth term. The report with regard to the Social, Education and Economic Survey of Muslims submitted approximately two years ago by the Asiah Development Research Institute (hereinafter referred to as ADRI) to the Commission had not been forwarded to the State Government. No annual report were submitted under Section 17 of the Act. An annual report had been submitted about two months ago which in fact was only a collection of correspondence. It was therefore apparent that the Commission had completely failed to perform its duties and fulfil its purpose and therefore they were required to show cause as to why they be not removed in public interest. Both of them submitted their reply to the show cause notice. The reply in CWJC No. 10060 of 2006 raised the issue of lack of infrastructure preventing him from exercising; his powers as Vice Chairman, the absence of any meeting being called by the Commission to submit that the order of his removal dated 22.7.2006 was mala fide and for reasons not attributable to him. It was sought to be impressed upon the Court that he had been raising the issue of lack of infrastructure as one of the reasonls for non functioning of the Commission before the authorities. The petitioner having done what were within his competence cannot be faulted with for issues beyond his control.