Haj | Chairman's Tenure Cannot Be Extended Beyond Tenure Of Committee: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the Chairman and Members of the State Haj Committee to extend the tenure of the Chairman and the Committee, beyond three years from the date of election, as the appointment of the Chairman was notified at a belated stage, post directions from the High Court. A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the petition filed...
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the Chairman and Members of the State Haj Committee to extend the tenure of the Chairman and the Committee, beyond three years from the date of election, as the appointment of the Chairman was notified at a belated stage, post directions from the High Court.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the petition filed by Raufuddin Kacheriwalay and others and said,
"The office of Chairman ordinarily has a prescribed tenure and such tenure begins from the day one of the Committee regardless of its incumbency. Section 21(1) mandates the government to convene the maiden meeting of the Committee within 45 days of its formation for electing one of its members as the Chairman. If delay is brooked in conducting such a meeting that does not elongate the tenure of the electee as the Chairman. In other words, the tenure of the Chairman is coterminous with that of his membership and once he ceases to be a member by resignation, removal or expiry of his membership, his Chairmanship also stands determined."
The bench added that if the statutory tenure of. Chairman is three years and the election of Chairman happens, say one year after the Committee was formed, it does not imply that still he holds the office for three years thereafter and eventually beyond the tenure of the very Committee which elected him.
Background
The petitioners 2 to 10 are the members of the State Haj Committee; they were so nominated by the State Government vide Notification dated 20.1.2020 for a period of three years. The appointment of the Chairman came to be notified on 7.7.2021, after intervention of the High Court in Khusro Qureshi vs. State of Karnataka, disposed off on 23.2.2021.
It was argued that Chairman was elected on 24.06.2021 but he was appointed vide Notification dated 7.7.2021; therefore, the tenure of the first petitioner as the Chairman should be allowed to continue till 6.7.2024. Further, it was claimed there is power to extend tenure of the Committee for not more than two terms u/s 21(4) of the Haj Committee Act, 2002 and the representations made in this regard on 23.12.2022, remain unconsidered. Therefore, the government should be directed to extend the tenure of the Committee, as well.
Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty opposed the plea arguing that the tenure of the Haj Committee and of the Chairman heading it are prescribed by the statute and such tenure cannot be elongated; it is only a member of the Committee who is elected by other members and therefore, the tenure of the Chairman is coterminous with his membership; an argument to the contrary would offend the provisions of Act which incorporate the principles of democracy.
Findings
Firstly the bench rejected the contention of the petitioners that the tenure of the Chairman of the K-SHC is three years and that the due election of the first petitioner as Chairman having been notified only on 7.7.2021, his tenure would continue till 6.7.2024.
It said “The K-SHC shall comprise of sixteen members to be nominated by the State Government as provided u/s 18 (of the Haj Committee Act, 2022). The nomination is notified u/s 19 with effect from which the Committee is comprised. Section 20(1) prescribes a tenure of three years to be reckoned from the Notification issued u/s 19.”
It said that i is the Committee constituted under the Notification dated 20.1.2020 which elected the first petitioner as the Chairman. The tenure of the Committee itself being three years, it can elect the Chairman for the length of its tenure and not beyond.
“The prescription of the term of office of the Chairman u/s 21(4) is three years, is 19 true. However, it only means that his tenure can be three years or for the remainder of the Committee’s tenure, whichever is earlier.”
The bench also opined that Section 21(1) mandates the government to convene the maiden meeting of the Committee within 45 days of its formation for electing one of its members as the Chairman. If delay is brooked in conducting such a meeting that does not elongate the tenure of the electee as the Chairman. “A Chairman necessarily has to be a member of the Committee and thus, being a member is a pre-requisite for becoming the Chairman. Had the Committee had power to elect a non-member to be the Chairman, arguably a different consideration would have arisen,” it said.
Dismissing the petition it held, “If the statutory tenure of Chairman is three years and the election of Chairman happens, say one year after the Committee was formed, it does not imply that still he holds the office for three years thereafter and eventually beyond the tenure of the very Committee which elected him. This proposition is consistent with the scheme enacted inter alia in sections 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 of the Act.”
Case Title: Raufuddin Kacheriwalay & Others And State of Karnataka & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.648 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 309
Date of Order: 11-08-2023
Appearance: Advocate Mohamad Tahir A for Petitioners.
Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty a/w Additional Advocate General S Ismail Zabiulla for FOR R1 & R2.
Advocate Mushtaq Ahmed Khadar for R3.