Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
40+ W.P.(C) 7869/2014, CMs No.16461/2014 (for stay), 18462/2014 (for appointment of receiver), 18673/2014 (for ex-parte stay) &
18674/2014 (for intervention)
SUHAIL AHMED KHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.P. Singh, Ms. Sonam Gupta, Mr. Rajkiran Vats, Mr. R.P. Vyas, Mr. Salil Bhattacharya and Mr. Paruesh Khanna, Advs.
Through: Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG with Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Mr. Dev P.
Bhardwaj, Mr. Sunil Dalal and Mr. Ajay Kalra, Advs. for R-1/UOI.
Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Adv. for R-3&7.
Mr. Waheeh Shafiq and Mohd.
Qaseem, Advs. for Delhi Wakf Board with Mr. Rana Parveen Siddique, Member of DWB.
Mr. Laliet Kumar, Adv. for R-5.
Mr. Arjun Pant, Adv. for R-6/DDA.
Mr. R.V. Sinha, Adv. for R-9/CBI.
Dr. Saif Mahmood and Mr. Abhijat, Advs. for Intervener in CMs
No.18673/2014 & 18674/2014.
2014:DHC:6236-DB 41+ W.P.(C) 7976/2014 & CM No.18696/2014 (for stay)
AJAY GAUTAM ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashish Mohan and Mr. Chetan Rai Wahi, Advs.
Mr. Anjum Javed and Mr. Devendra Kumar, Advs. for R-4&5.
AND
42+ W.P.(C) 7990/2014 & CM No.18717/2014 (for stay)
V.K. ANAND ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner-in-person.
Mr. Kartik Jindal, Adv. for Mr. V.K.
Tandon, Adv. for GNCTD.
Mr. Anjum Javed and Mr. Devendra Kumar, Advs. for R-3.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O R D E R
20.11.2014 CM No.18463/2014 in W.P.(C) No.7869/2014 & CM No.18717/2014 in
W.P.(C) No.7990/2014 (both for exemption)
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The applications are disposed of. W.P.(C) 7869/2014, CMs No.16461/2014 (for stay), 18462/2014 (for appointment of receiver), 18673/2014 (for ex-parte stay) & 18674/2014 (for intervention), W.P.(C) 7976/2014 & CM No.18696/2014 (for stay) & W.P.(C) 7990/2014 & CM No.18717/2014 (for stay)
3. The issues sought to be espoused in these three petitions filed as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) may be summed up as under:
(i) The Union of India, Archaeological Survey of India and Govt.
of NCT of Delhi having failed to protect, promote and develop the Jama Masjid, a monument with historical and archaeological significance.
(ii) Need for the Jama Masjid to be declared as a protected monument.
(iii) Need to take steps for grant of status of World Heritage site to the Jama Majsid.
(iv) The Delhi Wakf Board having not performed its statutory duties vis.-a-vis. the Jama Masjid.
(v) Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari having made the monument of
(vi) The Bukhari family of which Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari is a member having made the post / office of Imam of the Jama Masjid a hereditary one and to which they are not entitled.
(vii) The aforesaid Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari having for the last several years appropriated all earnings from the Jama Masjid exclusively to himself and also having failed, inspite of Court’s directions, to render accounts thereof.
(viii) The said Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari having used the title of
(ix) For preventing use by the Bukhari family of the Jama Masjid as their residence;
(x) Need thus for direction to the Delhi Wakf Board to take over the affairs of the Jama Masjid.
(xi) For framing of appropriate guidelines for governing the appointment of Imams.
4. The specific pleadings in the petitions included that Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the self proclaimed ‘Shahi Imam’ of the Jama Masjid, has publically announced anointment of his youngest son as the Naib Imam of the Jama Masjid and that an anointment ceremony (Dastarbandi) in this regard at the Jama Masjid is scheduled for 22nd November, 2014. Contending that the same is without authority and illegal, the petitioners prayed for interim relief for not allowing the said ceremony to take place.
5. The counsel for the Delhi Wakf Board appearing on advance notice submitted that though the Jama Masjid is a Wakf property, no Mutawalli has been appointed with respect thereto. On our further enquiry as to what rights and control the Delhi Wakf Board has been exercising over the said Jama Masjid and as to why the Delhi Wakf Board has left the entire management of the Jama Masjid to Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the counsel is unable to explain except stating that though Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari was anointed as the Imam of the Jama Masjid in the year 2000, the Delhi Wakf Board ratified his appointment only in the year 2006. No reply was forthcoming even for our query as to in exercise of what power Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari was appointed as the Imam of the Jama Masjid.
6. We may notice that the Wakf Act, 1995 provides only for the appointment of a Mutawalli of a Wakf and contains no provision for appointment of Imams of Wakf properties, even if a masjid.
7. So far as the ceremony scheduled on 22nd November, 2014 for anointment of the youngest son of Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari as Naib Imam is concerned, while stating that Waqf Board has not given any permission, it is further added by the counsel for the Delhi Waqf Board that the appointment announced is without any sanctity unless ratified by the Delhi Wakf Board and for which no application has been received so far.
8. At this stage Ms. Rana Parveen Siddique an Advocate of this Court present in Court has interjected and informed that she is the member of the Delhi Wakf Board and confirms that the announcement by Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari of anointment of his youngest son as Naib Imam is not valid. She further informs that the prayers in a masjid are to be led by an Imam.
9. However no answer is still forthcoming as to why the Delhi Wakf Board has not exercised any rights or supervision over the Jama Masjid or as to why the Delhi Wakf Board has allowed Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari to appropriate all earnings from the said masjid and also not taken any action for accounts thereof being not rendered inspite of Court direction.
10. We further record that the counsels for the petitioners controvert appointment of Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari even as the Mutawalli and contend that the Wakf Board has declared itself to be the Mutawalli of Jama Masjid.
11. The matter requires consideration.
12. Issue notice.
13. For the sake of convenience W.P.(C) No.7869/2014 is to be treated as the lead petition and the pleadings be completed therein only. The other two petitions be simply tagged to W.P.(C) No.7869/2014.
14. The counsels for the respondent Union of India, Archaeological Survey of India, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Delhi Wafk Board, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi Development Authority, Delhi Police and Central Bureau of Investigation appearing on advance notice accept notice. Issue notice to Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari by all modes including dasti, returnable on 28.01.2015.
15. We are of the opinion that in the face of the contentions of the petitioners that Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari has no right in law or otherwise to anoint his son as the Naib Imam and which is supported by the Delhi Wakf Board, the anointment ceremony (Dastarbandi) scheduled on 22nd November, 2014 even if not stayed would not amount to anointment / appointment of the said son of Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari as the Naib Imam of the Jama Masjid. We therefore do not feel any need to pass any ad interim order restraining the same.
16. The counsels for the petitioners have further contended that the ceremony be not allowed to be held at the Jama Masjid, a public place.
17. In view of the admitted position of Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari and his family for the last several years having used Jama Masjid as their residence, we at this stage do not feel any need for any such ad interim order also.
18. However, we clarify that the ceremony so held and the anointment / appointment made therein of the youngest son of Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari or any other person as the Naib Imam of the Jama Masjid shall be subject to further orders in this petition and shall not vest/create any rights or special equities in favour of any person.
19. Re-notify on 28.01.2015. In the meanwhile, counters if any be filed. Copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of the Court Master.
CHIEF JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. NOVEMBER 20, 2014 bs/pp