Page No.# 1/22 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 8981 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/22 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 28 November, 2025

                                                                   Page No.# 1/22

GAHC010017342022




                                                              2025:GAU-AS:16331

                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : WP(C)/544/2022

         ABUL HUSSAIN AND 4 ORS
         S/O. ABDUL GAFUR, VILL. ALOMGANJ PT-VIII, P.O. ALOMGANJ, P.S.
         GAURIPUR, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM.

         2: MOTIAR RAHMAN
          S/O. HABIBAR RAHMAN MOLLAH
         VILL. ALOMGANJ PT-IX
          P.O. ALOMGANJ
          P.S. GAURIPUR
          DIST. DHUBRI
         ASSAM.

         3: ABDUR RASHID
          S/O. LT. KANTU SHEIKH
         VILL. CHAUTARA
          P.O. RANGAMATI
          P.S. GAURIPUR
          DIST. DHUBRI
         ASSAM
          PIN-783339.

         4: KORBAN ALI SHEIKH
          S/O. LT. TOMSER ALI
         VILL. 87 TOPPARA JHAUPARA PT-II
          P.O. RANGAMATI
          P.S. GAURIPUR
          DIST. DHUBRI
         ASSAM
          PIN-783339.

         5: ISMAIL HUSSAIN
          S/O. AHMMAD ALI
         VILL. BAGULAMARI PT-I
          P.O. ALOMGANJ
                                                                        Page No.# 2/22

             P.S. GAURIPUR
             DIST. DHUBRI
             ASSAM
             PIN-783339

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
            TO BE REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
            PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.

            2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

             DHUBRI
             DIST. DHUBRI
             ASSAM
             P.O. DHUBRI
             PIN-783301.

            3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

             ZILLAPARISHAD
             DHUBRI
             P.O. DHUBRI
             DIST. DHUBRI
             ASSAM
             PIN-783301.

            4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER

             GAURIPUR REVENUE CIRCLE
             GAURIPUR
             P.O. GAURIPUR
             DIST. DHUBRI
             ASSAM
             PIN-783331.

            5:ALAMGANJ GAON PANCHAYAT
             REP. BY THE SECRETARY
             P.O. GAURIPUR
             DIST. DHUBRI
             PIN-783331

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. S H ZAMAN,MR F U
BARBHUIYA

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, P AND R.D.
                                Page No.# 3/22




Linked Case : WP(C)/917/2022

AHMMED ALI AND 10 ORS
S/O- LATE NOSERALI
VILL- DALANER ALGA PART-I
P.O ALOMGANJ
P.S- GAURIPUR
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783339

2: MOYDAN ALI SHEIKH
S/O- LATE KITAB ALI
VILL- KAUNBARI
 P.O ALOMGANJ
 P.S- GAURIPUR
 DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
 PIN- 783339

3: BAKKAR ALI
S/O- LATE SURMAN ALI
VILL- DALANER ALGA PART-I
P.O ALOMGANJ
P.S- GAURIPUR
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783339

4: EUNUS ALI
S/O- KHOSAL SK
VILL-ALOMGANJ PART-II
P.O- ALOMGANJ
P.S- GAURIPUR
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783339

5: ROSHIDUR RAHMAN
S/O- MAHMUD ALI
VILL-GERAMARI PART-V
P.O- ALOMGANJ
P.S- GAURIPUR
DIST- DHUBRI
                               Page No.# 4/22

ASSAM
PIN- 783339

6: ABDUS SAMAD SHEIKH
S/O- TAMIZ UDDIN SK
VILL-DEBOTTAR RAIPUR PART-I
P.O- ALOMGANJ
P.S- GAURIPUR
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783339

7: RAJU SHEIKH
S/O-LATE DELBOR ALI
VILL-GERAMARI PART-IV
P.O- ALOMGANJ
P.S- GAURIPUR
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783339

 8: BOSIR UDDIN
S/O- EASIN SK
VILL-ALOMGANJ
PART-VI

P.O- ALOMGANJ
 P.S- GAURIPUR
 DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
 PIN- 783339

9: GOLAP UDDIN
S/O- MORTAZ ALI
VILL- FASHATPUR
P.O- ALOMGANJ
P.S- GAURIPUR
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783339

10: MANNAN ALI SHEIKH
S/O- LATE NUR HUSSEN SK
VILL-BANIAMARI PART-IV
P.O- RONGAMATI
P.S- GAURIPUR
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
                                                   Page No.# 5/22

PIN- 783339

11: GOLAM HOSSAIN SHEIKH
S/O-ASIR UDDIN SK
VILL-86 TOPPARA JHAUPARA PART-I
P.O- RONGAMATI

P.S- GAURIPUR
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783339
VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 15 ORS
REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.

2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DHUBRI
 DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
 P.O- DHUBRI
 PIN-783301

3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLAPARISHAD DHUBRI
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
P.O- DHUBRI
PIN-783301

4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GAURIPUR REVENUE CIRCLE
GAURIPUR
P.O-GAURIPUR
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783301

5:ALAMGANJ GAON PANCHAYAT
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
P.O-GAURIPUR
DIST- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783339
                                                       Page No.# 6/22


6:MOZAMMIL HUSSAIN
S/O NASIR UDDIN
R/O VILL. I.G ROAD
WARD NO. 13
P.O- WIM CO ROAD
P.S AND DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PRESIDENT OF SODOU AXOM GORIA-MORIA-DESI JATIYO PARISHAD OF
DHUBRI DIST.

 7:NOOR ISLAM
(PRESIDENT CORE COMMITTEE OF NABABI PANBARI RANGAMATI
MASJID)
 S/O LATE AZIBAR RAHMAN
 VILL RANGAMATI PART-II
 DIST. DHUBRI
 ASSAM
 PIN-783339

 8:ROFIQUL ISLAM
(SECRETARY
 CORE COMMITTEE OF NABABI PANBARI RANGAMATI MASJID)
 S/O NOWSHAD ALI
 VILL- RANGAMATI PART-III
 P.O- RANGAMATI
 DIST.- DHUBRI
 PIN- 783339.

 9:HAZI MONIRUDDIN
(VICE PRESIDENT
 CORE COMMITTEE OF NABABI PANBARI RANGAMATI MASJID)
 S/O LATE DISAMUDDIN SK
 VILL- ALOMGANJ PART V
 P.O- ALOMGANJ
 DIST.- DHUBRI
 PIN- 783339.

 10:MOZAMMIL HOQUE
(ASSISTANT SECRETARY
 CORE COMMITTEE OF NABABI PANBARI RANGAMATI MASJID)
 S/O LATE KOLIMUDDIN SK
 VILL- ALOMGANJ PART- IV
 P.O- ALOMGANJ
 DIST- DHUBRI
 PIN- 783339.

11:ARSHAD HUSSAIN
                                                       Page No.# 7/22

(OFFICE SECRETARY
 CORE COMMITTEE OF NABABI PANBARI RANGAMATI MASJID)
 S/O MONOWAR HUSSAIN
 VILL- ALOMGANJ PART- V
 P.O- ALOMGANJ
 DIST- DHUBRI
 PIN- 783339.

 12:AZIZUL HOQUE
(CASHIER
 CORE COMMITTEE OF NABABI PANBARI RANGAMATI MASJID)
 S/O OMAR ALI
 VILL- ALOMGANJ PART- IV
 P.O- ALOMGANJ
 DIST- DHUBRI
 PIN- 783339.

 13:NUR ALOM
(MEMBER
 CORE COMMITTEE OF NABABI PANBARI RANGAMATI MASJID)
 S/O LATE DISAMUDDIN SK
 VILL- ALOMGANJ PART- IV
 P.O- ALOMGANJ
 DIST- DHUBRI
 PIN- 783339.

 14:FIRDUS ALOM
(MEMBER
 CORE COMMITTEE OF NABABI PANBARI RANGAMATI MASJID)
 S/O LATE JAINUDDIN
 VILL- BAGHMARA
 P.O- ALOMGANJ
 DIST- DHUBRI
 PIN- 783339.

 15:ANOWAR RAHMAN
(MEMBER
 CORE COMMITTEE OF NABABI PANBARI RANGAMATI MASJID)
 S/O LATE HASEN ALI
 VILL- ALOMGANJ PART- V
 P.O- ALOMGANJ
 DIST- DHUBRI
 PIN- 783339.

 16:ABDUR RASHID MOLLAH
(MEMBER
 CORE COMMITTEE OF NABABI PANBARI RANGAMATI MASJID)
 S/O LATE MOZID MOLLAH
                                                                     Page No.# 8/22

          VILL- ALOMGANJ PART- VII
          P.O- ALOMGANJ
          DIST- DHUBRI
          PIN- 783339.
          ------------

Advocate for : MR. M A I HUSSAIN Advocate for : SC P AND R.D. appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 15 ORS

:::BEFORE:::

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

Date on which judgment is reserved : 20.11.2025 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 28.11.2025 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative of the judgment? : No

Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate and Mr. R. Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 5, and Mr. A. Islam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6.

2. By filing these writ petitions, the petitioners have put to challenge the impugned order dated 24.01.2022, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri, Page No.# 9/22

by which it is directed to form a new management committee of Panbari Masjid within 31.01.2022 from seven villages on the basis of immediate geographical contiguity, religious, cultural and social similarity and the notice dated 27.01.2022, issued by the Secretary, Alomganj Gaon Panchayat, fixing the date of meeting for formation of the new committee on 29.01.2022.

3. Having considered that issues involved in both these writ petitions are similar on facts and law, same were heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment and order.

4. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they are the residents of the areas surrounding Panbari Masjid in the District of Dhubri, Assam, falling under Panbari and Alomganj Gaon Panchayats under Gauripur Police Station. The Masjid, historically known as Panbari Rongamati Moszid-E-Nawabi, is stated to have been established in the 15th century and its affairs have traditionally been managed by local residents of both Gaon Panchayats. From time to time, Managing Committees have been constituted for administration of the Masjid. On 10.08.1992, Bye-laws were adopted, providing for an Executive Committee comprises of a President, two Vice-Presidents, General Secretary, Assistant General Secretary, Treasurer, and 11 Working Members, all to be selected from a General Body of 100 members. The tenure of the Executive Committee is three years and a general body meeting is required to be convened before one month of the expiry of each term for constitution of a new Committee.

5. The last Executive Committee was constituted on 30.12.2018 and assumed charge on 31.12.2018, with a tenure up to 30.12.2021. Petitioners No. 3 & 4 (in WP(C) No. 544/2022) claim to have served as Secretary and Assistant Secretary, respectively, while petitioners No. 1, 2 & 5 (in WP(C) No. 544/2022) were Page No.# 10/22

General Body members. As the term was near completion, petitioner No. 3 approached the respondent No. 2 seeking permission to convene a general meeting on 26.10.2021 for formation of a new Committee. However, the Respondent No. 2 did not grant permission on the ground of COVID-19 restrictions and advised the petitioners to approach again prior to 15 days of the expiry of the term of the said committee. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 3 again submitted application dated 14.12.2021, seeking permission for holding general body meeting to be held on 26.12.2021, as the existing Committee being due to dissolve automatically on 31.12.2021. However, the said application was kept pending without decision, which, according to the petitioners, resulted in denial of their right to constitute a new Committee.

6. Aggrieved by the alleged inaction, petitioner No. 3, along with the President, approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 7352/2021, wherein this Court, by an order dated 29.12.2021, directed the Respondent No. 2 to consider and dispose of the representation dated 14.12.2021 within 10 days of receipt of the certified copy of the order and, in the meantime, to maintain status quo with regard to the Executive Committee of Panbari Masjid. In compliance with the said order, the Respondent No. 2 issued an order dated 05.01.2022 directing all concerned to maintain status quo regarding the tenure of the Executive Committee of Panbari Rongamati Mosjid-E-Nawabi until a general body meeting is held for election/selection of a new Committee. A meeting was thereafter convened by the Deputy Commissioner on 07.01.2022, which was attended by petitioner No. 3, along with the President of the present committee, to discuss matters relating to management and formation of a new Committee among the residents of the two Gaon Panchayats, namely, Amonganj and Panbari Gaon Panchayats.

Page No.# 11/22

7. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 24.01.2022, the Respondent No. 2 directed formation of a new Management Committee, however, only certain villages of Alomganj and Rongamati were included while several villages under Alomganj and Panbari Gaon Panchayats, including those of the petitioners, were excluded without reasons. The petitioners contend that such exclusion is arbitrary and contrary to past practice and the 1992 Bye-laws. Consequent to the impugned order dated 24.01.2022, residents of the affected villages held a meeting on 26.01.2022 and authorized the petitioners to initiate legal proceedings. Hence, the present writ petitions.

8. Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that Panbari Mosjid is situated at Rongamati and is surrounded by 27 revenue villages under Alomganj and Panbari Gaon Panchayats, and from time immemorial, the residents of all these villages have participated in constituting its Managing Committee. However, by the impugned order dated 24.01.2022, Respondent No. 2 has arbitrarily restricted participation to only seven selected villages, excluding the petitioners' villages without any justification, which is discriminatory and contrary to long-standing practice as well as the Bye-laws governing the Masjid. He submits that the petitioners' villages are located closer to the Masjid, which is within 200 meters to 3 kilometers, whereas several villages, which are permitted to participate, are situated at distance which is more than 5 kilometers away. Such selective inclusion, despite geographical proximity and historical participation, is arbitrary, discriminatory and vitiates the impugned order. He submits that the impugned order appears to have been issued under political influence, as it was circulated to the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister, which itself reflects extraneous considerations affecting a religious institution's internal management.

Page No.# 12/22

9. He submits that upon receipt of the impugned order, the residents of the affected villages held a meeting on 26.01.2022 and authorized the petitioners to take legal recourse. A representation seeking modification of the order was submitted on 27.01.2022 before Respondent No. 2, but no corrective action has been taken. Meanwhile, the authorities have issued a notice dated 27.01.2022 for convening a Special Gaon Sabha on 29.01.2022 for formation of the new Committee. He submits that unless the impugned order and notice are set aside, the petitioners will be permanently deprived of participation. The petitioners, being residents, have a vested and legitimate right to participate in the formation of the Managing Committee, having been involved in its administration historically, and their exclusion without any hearing violates principles of natural justice. Hence, a direction may be issued to Respondent No. 2 to modify the impugned order by including the petitioners' villages permitting their participation in the formation of the Committee. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajendra Das vs. State of Assam in WP (C) 5616/2018 to submit that the State does not have any authority or power to interfere with the management of the religious denomination.

10. Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents, submits that the necessity for calling such a meeting was due to a dharna held by the Sadou Assam Goria Moria Deshi Jatiya Parishad on 19.10.2021 in front of the Panbari Masjid. The dharna was in protest of alleged corruption against the existing Management Committee and other allegations regarding the functioning of the Committee and the manner in which the Committee was elected. The District Administration had assessed a treat to the public peace and tranquility and a serious threat to the law and order situation Page No.# 13/22

of the area. It had the possibility of spreading to other parts of the District as well as the State. It was due to such reason, that after the discussion in the meeting of all the stakeholders of the Panbari Masjid, in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri, the District Administration decided that the formation of the new Committee would be held in a democratic manner, to be conducted by the District Administration and to prevent any further allegations of mismanagement, the District Administration will appoint an Executive Officer, who will be a Government servant, to guide the Committee. He submits that the rationale for selecting the seven villages was not merely based on distance of the villages, but also on several historical, social and cultural aspects.

11. Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate, submits that the Panbari Masjid was constructed by the Nawab of Bengal around 1490. Historically, the surrounding area came to be inhabited by converted Muslims, described in the British India Census of 1872. At present, the "Desi Muslim", also known as "Koch Muslims", population is primarily concentrated in seven revenue villages under Panbari and Alomganj Gaon Panchayats, where the Masjid is located. The area earlier formed part of the Gauripur Zamindari. After the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956, much of the land became Government land or land held by co-operative societies, creating a grey zone that has attracted fresh settlers, including erosion-affected persons and encroachers from South Salmara. The District Administration is identifying such encroachments and has already carried out eviction drives. Due to such influx of settlers caused apprehension among the local population, who felt that their representation in religious, cultural, and social institutions was diminishing. The recent dharna at the Masjid reflected such concerns.

12. He submits that upon expiry of the previous Managing Committee on Page No.# 14/22

31.12.2021 and to prevent disturbance of public peace and tranquility, the District Administration facilitated formation of a new committee democratically by selecting the said seven historically connected villages. A 100-member General Body was formed through Gram Sabhas, which then elected a 10- member Core Committee by secret ballot. Members were required to have their names in the electoral rolls of these villages and possess patta land in their own or ancestral names. The Administration's role is limited to external and management related aspects of the Masjid, which is also a site protected by the Archeological Survey of India and does not interfere with its religious functioning, which continues under Islamic law. No person from any area is barred from offering prayers and the Masjid remains open to all the tourists, visitors and devotees. Accordingly, he submits that the process has been taken forward in transparent and democratic way, requiring no modification and therefore, the writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

13. Mr. A. Islam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6, while adopting and subscribing to the submissions of the learned State Counsel, submits that the Panbari Masjid has been managed by the Desi Muslims since time immemorial. The present petitioners are the immigrant Muslims and therefore, they cannot claim for participation in the formation of New Committee, though they have the right to enter the Masjid and offer prayers. Mr. Islam has relied upon the decision in the case of Satradhikar, Bengana Ati Satra & Anr. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2000 (2) GLT 286. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein below:-

"(19) From the decisions referred to above, the legal position as culled out is that Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution ensure right to freedom of religion and guarantee the right to manage the own affairs in the matters of religion.

The integral part of the religious rites and rituals and manner and mode of ceremonies as may be essential according to the tenets of the religion cannot Page No.# 15/22

be interfered with. The integral and the essential religious ceremonies and performance are sacrosanct and no outside authority will have legitimate power to meddle with such essential religious matters. Any action relating to the above matter by any authority, may be administrative or legislative, would be violative of clause (b) of article 26 of the Constitution. But, at the same time, it is also clear that activities of religious denomination other than related to purely essential and integral part of the religious activities can well be regulated by law. Such activities are often described as secular activity of any religious denomination. Properties of religious denomination can be managed in accordance with law and that would be within the purview of Clause (d) of Article 26 of the constitution, The distinction in regard to the two kinds of activities and extent of their protection from outside interference is very well countenanced by a bare perusal of clauses (b) and (d) of Article 26. In this light of the matter we find that the impugned provision, namely, Section 25a inserted in the Act by act XIX of 1987 only provides for constitution of a Managing Committee to have control over the matter of utilisation of the annuity and verification of the proper maintenance of the institution. It then provides the manner in which the committee is to be constituted, namely, the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer or his nominee is to be the President of the Committee with an Ex-Officio Secretary to be elected by the deuries/bor Deuries and there would be 5 member to be elected from amongst the devotees. It would thus be a body consisting of 7 persons out of which 5 will the devotees and the other 2, namely, the President and the secretary will be from the officers of the administration, namely, the Deputy commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer or his nominee as the President, but the Ex-Officio Secretary would again be a person elected by Deuries/bor Deuries.

(20) The statutory function which is conferred upon such Managing Committee to have control over the matter of utilisation of annuity that is to say, it relates to financial affairs or management of the finances of the religious denomination and verification of the proper maintenance of the institution. None of the activities as assigned to the Committee relate to the performance of religious activity of the Satra, According to the respondents the objective behind the amended provisions is to remove the intermediaries who enjoy much benefits as Individuals as against the interest of the institution. It is also indicated that there have been some instances where the land belonging to the institution have been rented out for individual benefits. In such circumstances, any law as enacted to have a control on the financial management of the institution would only serve the public purpose as against the individual Interest of those who may be in the helms of the affairs of the religious institution: Such a pre-caution as taken, is permissible and comes clearly within the sweep of clause (d) of Article 26 of the constitution. Clause (2) of Article 25 of the constitution clearly provides that nothing in article 25 shall prevent the State from making any law regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or secular activities which will be associated with religious practice."

Page No.# 16/22

14. Due consideration has been extended to the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

15. The petitioners claim to represent the people of two Gaon Panchayats, namely- Panbari Gaon Panchayat and Alomganj Gaon Panchayat- consists of 27

villages, contends that Panbari Mosjid, which was established in the 15 th Century by Hussain Shah, the Nawab of Bengal, also known as Panbari Rongmati Masjid-E-Nawabi, is run and managed by the people of surrounding areas of the said two Gaon Panchayats which includes the petitioners. From time immemorial, the residents of all these villages have participated in constituting its Managing Committee. However, by the impugned order dated 24.01.2022, Respondent No. 2 has arbitrarily restricted participation to only seven selected villages, excluding the petitioners' villages without any justification, which is discriminatory and contrary to long-standing practice as well as the Bye-laws. The petitioners' villages are located closer to the Masjid, which is within 200 meters to 3 kilometers, whereas several villages, which are permitted to participate, are situated at distance which is more than 5 kilometers away. Such selective inclusion, despite geographical proximity and historical participation, is arbitrary, discriminatory and vitiates the impugned order.

16. The genesis of the issue appears to have arisen due to dharna held by one Sadou Assam Goria Moria Deshi Jatiya Parishad on 19.10.2021 in front of the Panbari Masjid alleging corruption and mismanagement against the Management Committee. The District Administration, having been assessed a treat to the public peace and tranquility and a serious threat to the law and order situation of the area which had the possibility of spreading to other parts Page No.# 17/22

of the State, initiated a discussion with all the stakeholders of the Panbari Masjid and accordingly a meeting was conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri. After detail discussion, it was decided that the new Committee would be formed to be conducted by the District Administration. It appears that selection of seven villages was based on immediate geographical contiguity, religious, cultural and social similarity.

17. It is discernable from the stand of the State respondents that the Panbari Masjid was established by the Nawab of Bengal around 1490. Historically, the surrounding area came to be inhabited by converted Muslims, described in the British India Census of 1872. The "Desi Muslim", also known as "Koch Muslims", population is primarily concentrated in seven revenue villages under Panbari and Alomganj Gaon Panchayats, where the Masjid is situated. The area earlier formed part of the Gauripur Zamindari and after the enactment of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956, the land became Government land or held by co-operative societies, creating a grey zone that has attracted fresh settlers, including erosion-affected persons and encroachers. The District Administration is identifying such encroachments and has already carried out eviction drives. The influx of settlers has caused apprehension among the local population, who felt that their representation in religious, cultural, and social institutions was diminishing.

18. It is seen that upon expiry of the previous Managing Committee and to prevent disturbance of public peace and tranquility, the District Administration facilitated formation of a new committee by selecting the said seven historically connected villages. It reflects that a 100-member General Body has to be formed through Gram Sabhas, which then would elect a 10-member Core Committee. Members are required to have their names in the electoral rolls of Page No.# 18/22

these villages and possess patta land in their own or ancestral names. The limited role of the District Administration is to an external management related aspects of the Masjid, which is also a site protected by the Archeological Survey of India. Thus, it cannot be held to be an interference with its religious denomination, which continues to be under religious practice as it is the categorical stand of State respondents that no person from any area is barred from offering prayers and the Masjid remains open to all the tourists, visitors and devotees.

19. As regards the submission of Mr. A. Islam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6, that the Panbari Masjid has been managed by the Desi Muslims since time immemorial and the present petitioners are the immigrant Muslims and therefore, they cannot claim for participation in the formation of New Committee, though they have the right to enter the Masjid and offer prayers, this Court refrains from commenting on the issue of Desi Muslims or immigrant Muslims as no record is place before this Court in support of such submission. However, it would be appropriate for the respondent authorities to facilitate as regards formation of management committee of the Masjid based on historical, social and cultural and religious aspects taking into account the practice since inception and to maintain law and order without interfering with the religious management/ affairs of the Masjid.

20. Article 25(2) of the Constitution of India provides that nothing shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice and providing for social welfare and reform.

21. It is settled law that the State does not have any authority or power to Page No.# 19/22

interfere with the management of the religious denominations, as the religious denominations have the right to manage their own affairs and enjoy complete autonomy in deciding their affairs.

22. In the case of Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamair of Sri Shirur Mutt, reported in AIR 1954 SC 282, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held which is reproduced herein under:-

"22. As regards commercial activities, which are prompted by religious beliefs, we can cite the case of Murdock v. Pennsylvania. Here also the petitioners were "Jehova's Witnesses" and they went about from door to door in the city of Jeannette distributing literature and soliciting people to purchase certain religious books and pamphlets, all published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. A municipal ordinance required religious colporteurs to pay a licence tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities. The petitioners were convicted and fined for violation of the ordinance. It was held that the ordinance in question was invalid under the Federal Constitution as constituting a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion; and it was held further that upon the facts of the case it could not be said that "Jehova's Witnesses" were engaged in a commercial rather than in a religious venture. Here again, it may be pointed out that a contrary view was taken only a few years before in the case of Jones v. Opelika(1), and it was held that a city ordinance, which required that licence be procured and taxes paid for the business of selling books and pamphlets on the streets from house to house, was applicable to a member of a religious Organisation who was engaged in selling the printed propaganda, pamphlets without having complied with the provisions of the ordinance.

23. It is to be noted that both in the American as well as in the Australian Constitutions the right to freedom of religion has been declared in unrestricted terms with. out any limitation whatsoever. Limitations, therefore, have been introduced by courts of law in these countries on grounds of morality, order and social protection. An adjustment of the competing demands of the interests of Government and constitutional liberties is always a delicate and a difficult task and that is why we find difference of judicial opinion to such an extent in cases decided by the American courts where questions of religious freedom were involved. Our Constitution-makers, however, have embodied the limitations Page No.# 20/22

which have been evolved by judicial pronouncements in America or Australia in the Constitution itself and the language of articles 25 and 26 is sufficiently clear to enable us to determine without the aid of foreign authorities as to what matters come within the purview of religion and what do not. As we have already indicated, freedom of religion in our Constitution is not confined to religious beliefs only; it extends to religious practices as well subject to the restrictions which the Constitution itself has laid down. Under article 26(b), therefore, a religious denomination .or organization enjoys complete autonomy in the matter of deciding as to what rites and ceremonies are essential according to the tenets of the religion they hold and no outside authority has any jurisdiction to interfere with their decision in such matters. Of course, the scale of expenses to be incurred in connection with these religious observances would be a matter of administration of property belonging to the religious denomination and can be controlled by secular authorities in accordance with any law laid down by a competent legislature; for it could not be the injunction, of any religion to destroy the institution and its endowments by incurring wasteful expenditure on rites and ceremonies. It should be noticed, however, that under article 26(d), it is the fundamental right of a religious denomination or its representative to administer its properties in accordance with law; and the law, therefore, must leave the right of administration to the religious denomination itself subject to such restrictions and regulations as it might choose to impose. A law which takes away the right of administration from the hands of a religious denomination altogether and vests it in any other authority would amount to a violation of the right guaranteed under clause (d) of article

26."

23. As held in the above judgment, it is settled that under Article 26(b) a religious denomination or organization enjoys complete autonomy in the matter of deciding as to what rites and ceremonies are essential according to the tenets of the religion they hold and no outside authority has any jurisdiction to interfere with their decision in such matters. The scale of expenses to be incurred in connection with these religious observances would be a matter of administration of property belonging to the religious denomination and can be controlled by secular authorities in accordance with any law laid down by a competent legislature; for it could not be the injunction, of any religion to destroy the institution and its endowments by incurring wasteful expenditure on Page No.# 21/22

rites and ceremonies. Under Article 26(d), it is the fundamental right of a religious denomination or its representative to administer its properties in accordance with law and the law, therefore, must leave the right of administration to the religious denomination itself subject to such restrictions and regulations as it might choose to impose. A law which takes away the right of administration from the hands of a religious denomination altogether and vests it in any other authority would amount to a violation of the right guaranteed under Article 26 of the constitution.

24. In the case of Rajendra Das (supra), the Deputy Commissioner-cum- District Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati has directed the Additional District Commissioner to take over the overall control and to streamline the dispute of Sri Sitaram Thakurbari. Accordingly, the Additional Deputy Commissioner taken over the entire management with regard to dispute between 2 (two) parties of Sitaram Thakurbari. In that context, this Court held that the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate has no authority to interfere with the affairs of religious denominations of Sri Sitaram Thakurbari which they have their right to manage their own affairs except in the area of law and order situation. Therefore, the case of Rajendra Das (supra) is clearly distinguishable.

25. In the present case, as noted in the preceding paragraph, it appears that to prevent disturbance of public peace and tranquility, the District Administration facilitated formation of a new committee by selecting the said seven historically connected villages based on immediate geographical contiguity, religious, cultural and social similarity. It reflects that a 100-member General Body is to be formed through Gram Sabhas, which then would elect a 10-member Core Committee. The limited role of the District Administration is to an external Page No.# 22/22

related aspects of the Masjid, which is also a site protected by the Archeological Survey of India. Thus, it cannot be held to be an interference with its religious denominations, which continues to be under religious practice as it is the categorical stand of State respondents that no person from any area is barred from offering prayers and the Masjid remains open to all the tourists, visitors and devotees. None of the rules/activities assigned for formation of the Committee relate to the performance of religious activity. It is only to facilitate the constitution of new management committee and to maintain law and order in the area. Such action on the part of District administration, in my view, would be permissible.

26. In view of the discussion made herein above, I am of the considered view that the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri has not acted in manner which interferes with the affairs of the Panbari Masjid on its religious denomination which has the right to manage their own affairs, but in the area of law and order situation, and only to facilitate the formation of new Management Committee. Thus, the impugned order dated 24.01.2022, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri, requires no interference and accordingly, same is declined.

27. In the result, the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant