Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: -23rd October, 2024.
SUHAIL AHMED KHAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.P. Singh, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Garima, Advocates (M:
9891357189)
Through: Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC
Circle. (M: 9312224805)
Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Adv.
Board
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC (GNCTD)
(M: 9891363718)
Mr. J. H. Jafri, Mr. Changez Khan, Mr. Saifud Din Khan, Ms. Shabeena Khan, Advocates for R-8. (M: 7002071630)
JUDGMENT
22 AND + W.P.(C) 7976/2014 & CM APPL. 41421/2017 AJAY GAUTAM.....Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person.
VERSUS
DELHI WAQF BOARD & ORS.....Respondents Through: Mr. Manish Mohan, Adv. (CGSC), Mr. Jatin Teotia and Mr. Samarth Talesara, Advs. (M: 9953615076) Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Adv with Mr. 16:02 Firoz Iqbal Khan, ASC Delhi WAQF Board with Mr. Qamar Alam, Advs. for R-4. (M: 981002094[2]) Mr. J. H. Jafri, Mr. Changez Khan, Mr. Saifud Din Khan, Ms. Shabeena Khan, Advocates for R-2. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. W.P.(C) 7976/2014 has been filed by the Petitioner - Ajay Gautam, seeking directions inter alia to the Respondent No. 1-Union of India to prevent Respondent No. 2-Maulana Sayyed Ahmed Bukhari from using the title of 'Shahi Imam'. W.P.(C) 7869/2014 has been filed by the Petitioner- Suhail Ahmed Khan, seeking a writ of quo warranto in respect of the appointment of Maulana Sayyed Ahmed Bukhari as the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid.
3. On 23rd August, 2017 this Court was apprised of the order dated 27th April, 2005 passed in W.P.(C) No.6846/2004 titled 'Heritage and Culture Forum v. Union of India & Ors' which directed the Ministry of Culture to produce the record of Ministry of Culture. Thus, on the said date, the Ministry of Culture was directed to produce the file in Court with regard to the subject wherein decision was taken not to declare the Jama Masjid as a protected monument.
4. The directions contained in the order dated 23rd August, 2017 were not complied with, and on 16th November, 2017, further time was sought by the Union of India to produce the same. On the said date, it was submitted that 16:02 the requisition had been made by the Archaeological Survey of India, (‘ASI’) to the Ministry of Culture, Govt. of India for the file. Thus, the Court again directed that the said file be produced. Again, on 27th February, 2018, the position remained the same. Thus, this Court directed the Union of India to file an affidavit disclosing the position of the Jama Masjid, and status of the file. Thereafter, on 21st May, 2018, the said file was placed before the Court. The said file was again directed to be produced again on 31st July, 2018.
5. On 28th August, 2024, this Court reiterated its directions, and directed the ASI to produce the original files relating to Jama Masjid.
6. On the last date of hearing i.e. 27th September, 2024 Mr. Pradeep Kumar Pandey, ASA working in Delhi Circle of the ASI produced some note sheets and one file numbered as 'T 19043/59/2023-M'. The Court perused the same and observed that the note sheets produced by the ASI mostly relate to the follow-up relating to the present writ petition and the action taken in respect of the writ petition. Further, the Court observed, that the file relating to the Jama Masjid does not mention its status as a protected monument, nor does it include details about the maintenance activities that are being undertaken by the ASI, the current occupants of the Jama Masjid or how the revenue is generated and utilised, etc. In view thereof, the Court directed an affidavit to be filed on behalf of the ASI in respect of the said aspects. The relevant portion of the order dated 27th September, 2024 is extracted hereinunder: “12.Mr. Pradeep Kumar Pandey, ASA working in Delhi Circle of the ASI has produced some note sheets and one file numbered as ‘T 19043/59/2023-M’. A perusal of these note sheets produced by the ASI shows that they mostly relate to the follow-up relating to the present writ 16:02 petition and the action taken in respect of the writ petition.
13. On a perusal of the note sheets and the file produced before the Court today, it is noticed that the file relating to the Jama Masjid does not mention its status as a protected monument, nor does it include details about the maintenance activities that are being undertaken by the ASI, the current occupants of the Jama Masjid or how the revenue is generated and utilised etc.
14. Let a short affidavit be filed by the competent official of the ASI in respect of the above aspects, and the original file relating to the Jama Masjid be produced before Court on the next date of bearing. This shall be undertaken directly under the supervision of the Director General, ASI, who shall bold a meeting with Mr. Anil Soni and Mr. Manisb Mohan, Id. Standing Counsels so as to ensure that a comprehensive affidavit is filed as to the above aspects in respect of the Jama Masjid. This shall be the final opportunity for the production of the original file in relation to the Jama Masjid.
15. A competent official from the ASI shall be deputed by the Director General, ASI who is aware of the facts for filing of such affidavit. Let the said affidavit be filed by the next date of bearing. Copy of this order be communicated to the following person by the Registry on the mobile and email address: Name: Dr. Y.S. Rawat, Director General, ASI Mobile: 9978405661 Email: de.asi@gov.in”
7. Today, a short affidavit has been filed by the Superintendent Archaeologist, the ASI as per which, the original file is stated to be still not traceable. However, the ASI acknowledges that restoration and conservation work has been carried out at the Jama Masjid without declaring the same as a protected monument. The statement of expenses incurred by the ASI for 16:02 conservation of Jama Masjid for the last 10 years has been placed on record. The same would show that the total expenses incurred by the ASI for repair, renovation, conservation and other work at the Jama Masjid from 2007-08 till 2021 is Rs. 61,82,816 /-.
8. The said affidavit also sets out details of the conservation work done by the ASI with respect to the Jama Masjid and the effect of declaring Jama Masjid as the protected monument. The relevant portions of the affidavit are set out below.
16:02 monument the regulations of prohibited and regulated areas came into the effect.”
9. Mr. Manish Mohan, ld. CGSC along with Mr. Anil Soni, ld. CGSC appear for the Union of India and submit that they have held a meeting with the Director General, ASI from which they have ascertained that no steps have been taken to declare Jama Masjid as a protected monument so far.
10. On behalf of the Delhi Waqf Board, Mr. Sanjoy Ghosh, ld. Senior Counsel appears and submits that in the affidavit filed by the Waqf Board, the Constitution of the Managing Committee of the Jama Masjid, (hereinafter, ‘Committee’) as per the office order dated 10th February, 2015 has been set out. As per the same, there are a total of nine members of the Committee including one President, one Vice-President, one General Secretary and remaining 6 members.
11. On a query from the Court, it is submitted that the present status of the members of the Committee is not completely clear and the Counsel would like to seek instructions in the matter.
12. On behalf of the Petitioner, it is submitted that the Jama Masjid ought to be declared as a protected monument and certain steps need to be taken to conserve the monument as also its vicinities.
13. Let a short note be placed on record by the Counsel for the Petitioner on the next date of hearing, suggesting the steps that ought to be taken, according to them, for protection and conservation of the Jama Masjid and its vicinity.
14. The ld. Senior Counsel for the Waqf Board may also place on record any change in the Constitution of the Managing Committee of the Jama Masjid. 16:02
15. Mr. Ghosh submits that currently the Commissioner, MCD has been given additional charge of the Delhi Waqf Board. On the question of use of the title Shahi Imam it is submitted by Mr. Ghosh that an affidavit has already been filed. This issue shall be considered on the next date.
16. On behalf of the Waqf Board, any suggestions/proposals for protection and conservation of Jama Masjid as also its vicinity may be placed before the Court.
17. If the Union of India either through the ASI or the Ministry wishes to place on record their stand in respect of the Constitution of the Managing Committee, streamlining the revenues of the Waqf Board, process of appointment of Imam, if any, etc they are free to do so.
18. The ASI along with representative/s of the Waqf Board shall conduct a survey/inspection of the Jama Masjid monument as also its vicinity and place on record any sketch along with a table outlining the purposes for which the Jama Masjid premises is being used. In addition the manner in which revenues/offerings are utilised shall also be filed. Photographs shall also be filed to support the report.
19. The respective affidavits/report be filed within 4 weeks.
20. List on 11th December, 2024 at 2.30pm. These are part heard matters.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE AMIT SHARMA JUDGE OCTOBER 23, 2024/dk/rks 16:02