Haj Committee: “The Tenure Of The Chairman Is Coterminous With That Of His Membership”- Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court in a petition preferred by the Chairman and Members of the Haj Committee has said that 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 membership, his tenure comes to an end.
The Court was deciding a writ petition praying to direct the respondents to not disturb the functioning of the petitioners as Chairman and Members till competition of their term of three years.
A Single Bench of Justice Krishna S. Dixit held, “… 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. This view gains support from the statutory scheme that 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.”
The Bench noted that the prescription of term of office of the Chairman under Section 21(4) is three years, is true, however, it only means that his tenure can be three years or for the remainder of the Committee’s tenure, whichever is earlier.
Advocate Mohamad Tahir A. represented the petitioners while Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty, AAG S Ismail Zabiulla, and Advocate Mushtaq Ahmed Abdul Khadar represented the respondents.
In this case, the petitioners being the nominated members of the State Haj Committee (K-SHC) constituted in terms of Section 18 of the Haj Committee Act, 2002 sought directions against the respondents to not disturb their functioning as their tenure was to end in July, 2024. The counsel for the petitioners argued that there was power to extend tenure of the Committee for not more than two terms under Section 21(4) of the said Act and the representations made in that regard remain unconsidered.
The petitioners (members) were nominated by the State Government for a period of three years and for very long, the chairman was not elected till the intervention of a Coordinate Bench in a case in which assurance of the State to conduct the election within an outer limit of six weeks was recorded. Thereafter, the election was held and the petitioner was appointed as chairman of the committee. The Executive Officer of K-SHC sent a proposal for reconstitution of the committee stating that its tenure would come to an end in January, 2023 to which the petitioners opposed.
The High Court in the above context observed, “The Chairman is a post or office as contradistinguished from its incumbent. The Committee is a corporate entity and the Chairman presides over its meetings. 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.”
The Court said that a formal appointment to the office of Chairman by election does not decide his tenure as long as there can be someone to officiate in his position, on ad hoc basis or otherwise.
“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”, added the Court.
The Court further noted that when a federal legislation enacts a democratic principle, due significance has to be attached to the same in respect of all institutions and, therefore, such a principle of democracy cannot be hibernated by a Latin maxim of the kind.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Cause Title- Raufuddin Kacheriwalay & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors.
