Hum Aap Ke (Ngo) Regd. & Ors. vs Union Of India And Another
2008 Latest Caselaw 984 Del

*                 HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                            WP(C) No.15453-55/2006

       Hum Aap Ke (NGO) Regd. & Ors.        ..... Petitioners
                     Through Dr.Manmohan Sharma, Advocate

                  versus

       Union of India and another                ..... Respondents
                       Through Ms.Monika Gupta, Adv. for R-1.
                                Mr.Irshad Ahmed with Mr.Abdul
                                Majeed and Mr.M.Z. Chaudhary,
                                Advocates for respondents 2 & 3.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR

     1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the
        judgment ?n
     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?n
     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?n

                                 ORDER

% 9.7.2008

1. This writ petition has been filed in public interest to

highlight certain malpractices allegedly going on in the

management of Dargah Sharif at Ajmer. The petitioner has apart

from pointing out the alleged acts of mismanagement and other

deficiencies sought directions for setting up of modern

educational and vocational centres with a view to eradicating

illiteracy and beggary. In the meantime complaints regarding

alleged mismanagement of the Dargah have been received even

by the government from various quarters and the government

has acted upon the said complaints and appointed an inquiry

committee under the Chairmanship of Mr.Ghayyur-e-Alam,

Member, Central Wakf Council and Member, Maulana Azad

Education Foundation. The inquiry committee headed by

Mr.Ghayyur-e-Alam came to the conclusion that the Dargah

Committee was guilty of grave mismanagement of the affairs of

the Dargah and its continuance was detrimental to the interest of

the Dargah. The government has accordingly superseded the

said Committee in terms of an order dated 24th August, 2007

passed in exercise of its powers under Section 8 of the Durgah

Khwaja Saheb Act, 1955.

2. On behalf of the Nazim of the Dargah and the newly

appointed Committee a statement was made before this Court

that the Committee and Nazim are ready and willing to consider

the well-meaning suggestions meant to improve the

management of the affairs of the Dargah. Now, a detailed

affidavit is filed by the respondents No.2 and 3 containing a chart

indicating the suggestions that are acceptable to the new

management and the steps taken by them for implementation of

the said suggestions. It is seen from the affidavit that almost all

suggestions of the inquiry committee as well as the petitioner are

being implemented by the new management.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however,

submitted that certain important suggestions are not

implemented by the Committee. He highlighted mainly three

aspects, first concerning the distribution of Chaddar to the needy

persons, secondly proper accounting of the donations and thirdly

beautification of the Dargah.

4. Insofar as distribution of Chaddars to needy persons is

concerned, it is pointed out by the respondents that the Chaddars

which are offered at the shrine are taken away by the Khadims

and the Committee does not acquire their possession. The same

also cannot be distributed as garments to the needy persons.

Besides it will amount to gross disrespect to the said offerings

because they are considered as very pious and could hurt the

religious sentiments of the followers.

5. In this regard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme

Court in Durgah Committee, Ajmer and another v. Syed

Hussain Ali and others AIR 1961 SC 1402. In that case the

Supreme Court considered the effect of Sections 2(d)(v) and 14 of

the Durgah Khawaja Saheb Act, 1955 (Act 36 of 1955). The Court

held that effect of these provisions is that when offerings are

made earmarked generally for the Durgah they belong to the

Durgah and such offerings can be received only by the Nazim or

his agent and by nobody else. These offerings never belonged to

the Khadims and they can therefore have no grievance against

either Section 2(d)(v) or Section 14 of the Act. That is a matter

concerning the property of the Durgah and it is open to the

Legislature to regulate by providing that the said offerings can be

solicited by the Nazim or his agent and by no one else. The

Khadim's right to receive offerings which has been judicially

recognised is in no manner affected or prejudiced by these

provisions. Even after the Act came into force, pilgrims might

and would made offerings to the Khadims and there is no

provision in the Act which prevents them from accepting such

offerings when made.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that

they would follow the law laid down by the Supreme Court in

Durgah Committee, Ajmer and another v. Syed Hussain Ali

and others (supra) in relation to the offerings of Chaddars by

the devotees.

7. The other area of controversy is about proper accounting

of donations. In the short affidavit, the respondents have stated

that green boxes are being kept inside the Dargah complex and

the same are opened in the presence of different heads of

various departments of the Dargah Committee by the Assistant

Nazim and money is being properly credited in the accounts. The

receipt for the amount so taken out from such green boxes is also

issued. Similarly other donations received in the Dargah Office

from various persons are also properly credited and are spent for

the purpose for which such amount has been given. The learned

counsel for the petitioner has shown from the records that the

green boxes are being opened by the officials in the absence of

Nazim or members of the Managing Committee or Board of

Trustees. He suggested that such boxes should be opened only

in the presence of Nazim and at least two members of the

management. His suggestion is acceptable to the respondents.

8. Lastly, the petitioner has made certain suggestions for

beautification of the Dargah area. The learned counsel appearing

for the respondents states that the Management Committee will

draw up a plan for beautification in consultation with the experts

and proper steps will be taken to beautify the area.

9. In view of the statements made on behalf of the Dargah

Management Committee, nothing survives for consideration in

this petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

                                       CHIEF JUSTICE



                                       S.MURALIDHAR
JULY 09, 2008                             (JUDGE)
"nm"