The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition filed against illegal madrassas in Azamgarh alleging that no opportunity was given before taking action against them.
A Single Bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Anjuman Siddiquia Jamia Noorul Oloom and four others.
The petition has been filed challenging an order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the Special Secretary, Government of UP, Lucknow insofar as it pertains to the petitioners and contains a direction for an action to be taken against them in pursuance of a report dated 30.11.2022 submitted by the Special Investigation Team (S.I.T), as considered in the meeting held on 19.12.2022.
Further prayer is for quashing the S.I.T report itself to the extent it pertains to the petitioners and also for quashing the Resolution dated 19.12.2022 passed in a meeting headed by Chief Secretary of the State Government whereby recommendation to accept the S.I.T report has been made. Another relief claimed is that the respondents may not harass or take coercive measures against the petitioners.
The petitioner No1 Anjuman Siddiqui Jamia Noorul Oloom Munshipur, Mubarakpur, Azamgarh through its Manager Zaheen Ahmad (the Society’) registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, established a Madarsa in the name and style of petitioner No 2- Madrasa Ashrafia Madintul Banat, Mubarakpur, Azamgarh (the Madarsa’) over the properties taken on lease and sale.
After due verification, Madarsa was registered under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 by a Registration Certificate dated 27.07.2011 and the State Government introduced a Scheme named “Madarsa Adhunikaran (Modernisation) Scheme” for providing teachers to the Madrasas and to provide financial assistance to them for the purposes of teaching different subjects and, under the said Scheme, the petitioner No 2-Madarsa appointed three qualified teachers, namely Kahakasha Parveen (petitioner No 3), Subi Parveen (petitioner No 4) and Mohd Shah Faizal (petitioner No 5).
It is further pleaded that under the aforesaid Scheme, a total sum of Rs 1,02,000/- was released by the State Government in two strokes (Rs 30,000/- + Rs 72,000/-) by 31.01.2016 and the said amount was directly transferred to the bank accounts of petitioner nos 3, 4 and 5, i.e the teachers, and its details were uploaded on the Portal of Madarsa and, later on, due to various difficulties including financial crunch, a decision to close down the Madrasa was taken and, during the said course, a letter dated 31.07.2017 was written by the petitioners to the respondent No 4- District Minority Welfare Officer, Azamgarh to withdraw the Madarsa from the aforesaid Scheme and, further, by another letter dated 27.11.2017, decision to close down the Madrasa was communicated by the petitioner No 2-Madarsa to the respondent no 4 and, consequently, the Madarsa stood finally closed in November, 2017.
The issue raised is that the Special Investigation Team (S.I.T), constituted to examine various complaints against Madarsa, submitted a report dated 30.11.2022 which was placed before a Committee headed by Chief Secretary of the State Government in its meeting dated 19.12.2022 and proceedings of the said meeting disclose various actions proposed to be taken against various Madrasas, including the petitioner-Madarsa, which include lodging of FIR against the office bearers of the Madarsa under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
The case of the petitioners is that the MadarsaAuthorities were never provided any opportunity, either to participate in the investigation conducted by the SIT or before passing of the Resolution dated 19.12.2022 or before accepting the S.I.T report and the Resolution under the impugned order dated 09.01.2023. They have alleged the entire proceedings have been undertaken in utter violation of principles of natural justice, terming the same to be thoroughly ex-parte, arbitrary, perverse, erroneous, discriminatory, unjustified and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The Court observed that a composite reading of sections of the Act, 2004 makes it clear that the Board, which comprises many officers, performs various functions including a function to recognize institutions and to call for reports from the Director of Minority Welfare, UP on the conditions of recognized institutions or of the institutions applying for recognition. The Board also has a power to refuse recognition as per Section 10(2)(iv) of the Act, 2004 and to withdraw recognition as per Section 10(2)(v) of the Act, 2004, as per the contingencies enumerated therein. The Act further empowers the Board to call for the reports from the Heads of the Institutions and carry out requisite inspections and also to take suitable actions for enforcement of the Rules, Regulations, decisions, instructions or directions of the Board.
In view of the above, neither the Board nor the State Government is powerless or functionless, in case, any illegality, irregularity, flaw, mischief, misrepresentation etc. comes to their knowledge by any means whatsoever, which may infer that either recognition was wrongfully granted to any Madarsa or, even if rightly granted, the conditions of recognition are being violated or it is not fit, either in the opinion of the Board or the State Government, that the recognition should continue for an indefinite period of time.
In the light of the aforesaid provisions, I find that if the State Government constituted a Special Investigation Team to carry out inspection, either through spot inspection, physical verification or even through Portal information uploaded by the Board, its action cannot be said to be unjustified.
As regards adherence of principles of natural justice, though the S.I.T has reported that it had conducted spot inspection and the concerned Madrasas were found nonexistent and that the office bearers of the Madarsa could not furnish necessary details in any manner, even if, the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the investigation conducted by the S.I.T was ex-parte, is accepted for the sake of argument, the Court finds that since the issue relates to withdrawal of or taking any action against the Madrasas, such power to withdraw vests in the Board as per Section 10 of the Act, 2004 and the State Government’s role is spelt out under Section 13 of the Act, 2004.
Therefore, the Court also observed that if, at all, violation of principles of natural justice, has been committed while conducting investigation by the SIT, though a contrary stand has been taken by the respondents, as already elaborately discussed, adherence/non-adherence of principles of natural justice can be understood in the light of implied exclusion of such provision to some extent under various subsections of Sections 13 and express inclusion under Section 10 (2) (vi) of the Act, 2004, and hence, if the Board proposes to take an action under Section 10 of the Act, 2004, it may call for reports from the Head of the Institution and consider the representation made by the Institution and sufficient protection has already been accorded as per the judgment/order of the Division Bench dated 09.02.2023.
“Further, section 10(2)(vi) of the Act, 2004 read with other provisions of the Act, 2004 contain provision for granting opportunity to Head of the Institution, if any act of contravention of the Rules or Regulations etc is alleged and, therefore, in view of the liberty granted by the Division Bench in the judgment dated 09.02.2023, the court found that petitioners have ample opportunity to raise their grievances before the concerned Authorities by way of making applications/representations and taking all such pleas which may be available to them and enclosing therewith all the documents which they intend to rely on and, once such application or representation is preferred, the Competent Authority would take into consideration the same and pass appropriate orders at appropriate stages with due communication to the petitioners also”, the Court further observed while dismissing the petitions.
“The Division Bench permitted the concerned petitioners to raise their grievances, if any, before the authority concerned by way of making an application/ representation taking all the pleas which may be available to them and enclosing therewith all the documents on which they intend to rely. The Division Bench also observed that once any such application/ representation is preferred, the competent authority in the State Government shall take into consideration the same and pass appropriate order, which shall be communicated to the petitioners also.
Prayers to quash or set aside either the S.I.T report dated 30.11.2022 or the Resolution of the State Government dated 19.12.2022 or the communication of the Special Secretary dated 09.01.2023 are hereby refused and declined and both the writ petitions are dismissed with the same liberty to the petitioners, as granted by the Division Bench of the Court in order dated 09.02.2023.
Interim order dated 19.04.2023 and dated 28.03.2023 in petitions are hereby vacated”, the Court ordered.