SARWAR SIDDIQUI Vs. SYED ANWAR ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Anil Mehta, the learned counsel for the appellant. For the order proposed to be passed, it is not considered essential to issue formal issue.

(2.) THE respondent No. 1 herein, instituted S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14611/2009, seeking appropriate writ, amongst others, to interfere with the order dt. 02.09.2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge & Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer, appointing the appellant herein, as the acting Chairman of the Dargah Hajrat Meera Sahab, Taragarh, Ajmer (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Dargah') and to appoint a regular Chairman in his place. An appropriate direction was also sought for to order the learned Civil Judge, Ajmer (respondent No. 2 in the writ petition) to hold a proper enquiry against the appellant. The respondent No. 1 pleaded that as far back in the year 1894, a suit i.e. Civil Suit No. 213/1894 - Nazaf Ali & Ors. Khadims of the Dargah Meera Sahab Vs. Gulzar Ali, was instituted alleging chiefly that the Dargah was not being properly managed and further due to financial irregularities, it was being exposed to considerable loss. By the judgment and order dt. 27.10.1896, the learned Sub Judge, First Class, Ajmer, formulated a scheme for efficient supervision and control of the Dargah, whereunder a Committee comprised of three members, two of whom were to be appointed by the Khadims by election from amongst themselves and a president thereof, was contemplated. The president of the Committee was to be a Mohamadan and all the members were required to be adult males of respectability. The person convicted of a serious offence under the Indian Penal Code i.e. theft, criminal breach of trust or the like or of bad character, was construed to be ineligible for the membership. The respondent No. 1 averred that since thereafter, the Dargah had been managed and supervised by the Managing Committee. That the Chairman was being nominated by the Civil Judge -cum -Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer, was mentioned as well. He further stated that the Civil Judge, Ajmer appointed the appellant as the Chairman/President of the Managing Committee by his order dt. 03.01.1989. He alleged that in the face of several complaints, he (appellant) was removed from the office of the Chairman on 03.08.1989. He, however, could manage to continue in the office on the strength of interim order obtained by him in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3179/1989, which was eventually dismissed as infructuous. According to the respondent No. 1, a specific complaint was made against the appellant on 23.06.1990 and though, an enquiry on the basis thereof was ordered by the learned Civil Judge, Ajmer and the allegations were found to be correct, no action was taken against him (appellant). It was, thereafter, that the appellant was again appointed as the Chairman of the Committee by the learned Civil Judge, Ajmer by his order dt. 05.07.2003. The respondent No. 1 has alleged that though a number of complaints had been filed against the appellant, highlighting his continuous misconduct vis -a -vis management of the Dargah, the learned Civil Judge, Ajmer, without making any enquiry in connection thereto, again appointed him the Chairman of the Managing Committee vide order dt. 02.09.2008 until further orders. Contending that inspite of several pending complaints, no enquiry was being conducted and that instead, the appellant was made to continue as the Chairman of the Committee for over two decades, the respondent No. 1 therefore, sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for redress.

(3.) THE respondent No. 2 i.e. Civil Judge & Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer -cum -Administrator and Controller of the Dargah Hajrat Meera Sahab, Taragarh, Ajmer, while admitting the adjudication made in Civil Suit No. 213/1894 and constitution of the Management Committee, in terms of the judgment and order dt. 27.10.1896 rendered therein, stated that he had been recently transferred to the post only a year back and questioned the locus of the respondent No. 1, branding him to be a stranger and not associated, in any manner, with the interest of the Dargah. While admitting that meanwhile, as averred by the respondent No. 1, the appellant had been once removed from the office of the Chairman, the respondent No. 2 conceded that he was not in a position to reply to the allegation that the appellant had been misappropriating from the annual income of the properties of the Dargah and donation amount of Rs. 20 lakhs and that to cover up the same, he is getting audit of the accounts, done by a person of his choice. The reply of the respondent No. 2, however, does not contain any specific denial to the allegation of the respondent No. 1 that a number of complaints were pending against the appellant and that the learned Civil Judge, Ajmer was not getting any enquiry done into it.