Considering the various judgments of
the Apex Court and High Court, Hinduism represents Indian culture and not a
religion, which includes Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism, Arya Samaj, Kabir Panth,
Radha Swamy, Dhan Nirankar and Lingayats etc., the philosophy and thoughts and
belief in which Lord, Ram, Lord Krishna, Shaivismwere considered God and a
number of other Religions founded by a number of Saints, Acharyas or Panths and
several other Philosophers. Each and every tribal, castes, sub-castes have
their own God or Goddess, different way of life, different beliefs and thoughts
and most of them have different way of worship, all Tribals have different
religion with different God and Goddess.
Bhaktimarg, Philosophy of Rama Krishna Panth and
Vivekanand Karmayog, Shaivists, thoughts of Gita and several Religions founded
by Philosphers and Thinkers such as OSO by Acharya Rajnish, ISCON, who believes
in Lord Krishna only. The propounders in the Gyan Yog founded by Saints,
philosophers and religious thoughts, Kabirpanthis, and thousands of such
thoughts, way of worship and Beliefs.
Basic concept of Hinduism is that way of reaching
to the eternal truth and to the Almighty is manifold and has given freedom to
all the members of the society to reach to the Almighty through their own way
as thoughts, belief the way of worship may be different. Such freedom in the
field of religion on Indian soil is derived from thousands of philosophies,
Thoughts and different ways of worship, traditions and belief from time to time
throughout the history of India. Combination of such religion, thought, belief
or way to reach to the eternal truth is Hinduism. Hinduism cannot be equated as
religion but it represents a civilization & culture and way of life born
and brought up on Indian soil and as such the arguments of Sri N.A. Khan that
Muslims minority may be considered 50% to the largest religious community,
i.e., Hindu is totally unsustainable in law. Every religion, thought, belief
way of worship born and broughtup on Indian soil is altogether
different/distinct from each other within the fold of Indian culture which
assimilate in Hindu culture. In view of the discussions made above that more
than several hundred religions within the fold of Hindu culture constitute a
separate and distinct religion and each religion group is a religious minority
in India. Thus, all religious groups within the Hindu culture are religious
minority in comparison to single muslim religious majority of having population
of 18.50% in State of U.P. and 13.80% in all India basis.
It is surprising that Union of India by
Notification dated 23.10.1993 recognized Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism as
minorities and did not consider any other religion like Bahabi, Sufism,
Aryasamaj, Kabirpanthi, Aghorpath and other religions born and broughtup in
India as minorities, though the Apex Court in the case of Arya Samaj has
considered as Arya Samajis as a religious minority group in the State of
Punjab. The State of U.P. and Union of India by issuing the notification under
the National Minority Act, 1992, have not applied mind as to any other
Religious group at all. In fact, Buddhism and Jainism are also part of the
Indian culture. They were born and developed as a reformative religion in
Indian society. The Apex Court in Bal Patil and another V. Union of India and
others (supra) referred above considered question of minority and laid down
law.
As stated (supra) that neither Union of India nor
State of Uttar Pradesh or Minority Commission of India or State Minority
Commission brought any material to show that what are the norms for declaring
any community as religious minority community, this Court on consideration of
proceedings of Constituent Assembly and judgments of the Apex Court considered
the question of religious minority and its various aspects, particularly, when
Sri S.M.A. Qazmi, learned Advocate General, State of Uttar Pradesh did not give
any assistance to the Court, though being Advocate General of the State of U.P.
he was expected to render assistance to the Court, but he only chose to depute
Sri B.N. Yadav and Sri Jai Krishna Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel, for
assistance of the Court, though hearing of the case continued for about three
months.
Thus the Constituent Assembly while framing
Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India was to provide equality of
minority and majority and not to give any privilege based on inequality.
Constituent Assembly provided protection to
Religious Minority Communities to ensure equality with rest of the society
which was felt necessary by the framers of Constitution of India taking into
consideration the circumstances prevailing at that time.
In Ahmedabad St. Xaviers' College Society Vs.
State of Gujarat, (1974) 1 SCC 717, in paragraph 9', the Apex Court has held
that:
"9. Every section of the public, the majority
as well as minority has rights in respect of religion as contemplated in
Articles 25 and 26 and rights in respect of language, script, culture as contemplated
in Article 29. The whole object of conferring the right on minorities under
Article 30 is to ensure that there will be equality between the majority and
the minority. If the minorities do not have such special protection they will
be denied equality."
Thus, the Constituent Assembly introduced Articles
29 and 30 of the Constitution of India to provide such rights to minority to
maintain equal right to them with majority and not to create any privilege or
inequality.
In (2005) 6 SCC 537, P.A. Inamdar and others Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others, (Seven Judges Bench), the Supreme Court of
India in Paragraph 95, has defined and considered the question of minority and
held linguistic and religious minority being a non-dominant group or
numerically less. Paragraph 95 of P.A. Inamdar case (Supra) is quoted as
follows:
"Minority" and "minority educations
institutions"
"95. The term "minority" is not
defined in the Constitution. Chief Justice Kirpal, speaking for the majority in
T.M.A.Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481 took a clue from
the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act and held that in view of India
having been divided into different linguistic States, carved out on the basis
of the language of the majority of persons of that region, it is the State, and
not the whole of India, that shall have to be taken as the unit for determining
a linguistic minority vis-a-vis Article 30. Inasmuch as Article 30(1) places on
par religions and languages, he held that the minority status, whether by
reference to language or by reference to religion, shall have to be determined
by treating the State as a unit. The principle would remain the same whether it
is a Central legislation or a State legislation dealing with a linguistic or religious
minority, Khare, J. (as His Lordship then was), Quadri, J. and Variava and
Bhan, JJ. In their separate concurring opinions agreed with Kirpal, C.J.
According to Khare, J., take the population of any State as a unit, find out
its demography and calculate if the persons speaking a particular language or
following a particular religion are less than 50% of the population, then give
them the status of linguistic or religious minority. The population of the
entire country is irrelevant for the purpose of determining such status.
Quadri, J. opined that the word "minority" literally means "a
non-dominant" group. Ruma Pal, J. defined the word "minority" to
mean "numerically less". However, she refused to take the State as a
unit for the purpose of determining minority status as, in her opinion, the
question of minority status must be determined with reference to the country as
a whole. She assigned reasons for the purpose. Needless to say, her opinion is
a lone voice. Thus, with the dictum of Pai Foundation, it cannot be doubted
that a minority, whether linguistic or religious, is determinable only by a
reference to the demography of a State and not by taking into consideration the
population of the country as a whole."
This Court after considering all the materials in
its entirety is of the view that so far as the linguistic minority is
concerned, 50% of the total population may be considered for recognising any
group as religious minority as after re-organisation of the States on
linguistic basis, the States may be considered for determining the linguistic
minority, but so far as religious minority is concerned, India is a secular
State and the States were not formed on the basis of religion, therefore, the
question further arises to be considered how population of 50% of the religious
minority or minority may be considered.
In view of the discussions made above, as this
Court has already described two kinds of religions (i) born on foreign land and
brought in India by foreigners, i.e., Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrian,
Parsees, Yahudis and (ii) born and broughtup in India, i.e., Buddhism, Jainsim,
Arya Samaj, Radha Swamy and several hundred other religious groups having
different God and Goddess with different thoughts, beliefs and way of life and
different way of worship discussed in the preceding Paragraphs of judgment
(supra) and any of such religions do not individually constitute a religious
majority group, but in fact reduced to minority. Only Muslim Religious
Community with 18.50% population in 2001 in State of Uttar Pradesh constitutes
single religious majority community. In 2001, Muslim Religious Community having
population of 3,07,40,198 is only single largest religious group in the State
of Uttar Pradesh which constitute majority religious group. There is no other
single religious community in Uttar Pradesh having such population, strength
and dominance. As has been discussed above that Hindu culture and civilisation
consists of several hundred religions and the Hindu Society is divided in
caste, creed and several ethnic groups and as such each and every religious
group forming Hinduism constitutes a minority religious group in comparison to
Muslims. It appears that the relevant part of report of Advisory Committee on
Minority (of Constituent Assembly) fixing percentage of the population of
religious minority groups on the basis of population & strength was not
brought to the notice of Apex Court, which fixed above 1-1/2% necessarily not
more than 2%. Even if considering the religious population, the Indian society
within the fold of Hindu culture consists of several hundreds of religious
groups, castes, sub-castes and several ethnic groups having different beliefs,
different thoughts, different way of worship and different way of life are
individually less than 50% and, thus, these religious groups also constitute
minority in comparison to Muslim Religious community. Some religious
communities believe Sri Ram as God, Lord Sri Krishna as God, Shiva as God,
Durga and Kali as Goddess, Pustimarg, Adwaitwad philosophy of Shankaracharya,
Sufism, Bahabi, Arya Samaj, Brahma Samaj, Rama Krishna Paramhans, Radha Swami
and several other religions discussed above (supra) following different
thoughts, beliefs and way of worship and considering their population and strength
they also constitute religious minority and are entitled to be recognised as
religious minority groups and protection under Articles 29 and 30 of the
Constitution of India.
All religions other than Muslims mentioned above
(supra) in vogue in State of Uttar Pradesh constitute religious minority group
and as such the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that all other
religious groups should be taken into account together and religious minority
could be considered in the context of entire Hindu Culture and Civilisation
while considering the Muslim religious minority is not acceptable, as has been
held by the Apex Court in Bal Patil's case (supra) that Hindu Society is
divided in different castes, sub-castes and different ethnic groups.
This Court is of the firm view that Muslim
Religious Community now are not entitled to get any protection under Article 29
and 30 of the Constitution of India as a religious minority community in Uttar
Pradesh. The recent judgment reported in (2007) 2, SCC 1, I.R. Colho (dead) by
Lrs Vs. State of T.N of Nine Hon'ble Judges Bench of the Apex Court has laid
down that power exercised by the Constituent Assembly was a constituent power
given by the people of India. This Court after taking into consideration proceedings
of Constitutional Assembly as well as the report of Advisory Committee on
Minority is further of the firm view that the notification dated 23.10.1993
under the National Commission of Minority Act, 1992 issued by the Union of
India declaring Muslim as minority is liable to be amended as Muslim Religious
community is the only single largest Religious majority group in comparison to
other religious groups and is not entitle to get any protection under Articles
29 and 30 of the Constitution of India.
A Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in
Islamic Academy of Education and another v. State of Karnataka following T.M.A.
Pai Foundation case (supra) has discussed the law relating to minority in
Paragraphs 107 and 118 of the judgment, same are being reproduced below:-
"107. The question, thus, has to be
considered keeping in view the fact that every Indian may be a minority, either
based on religion or language, in one part of the country of the other. The
right of a citizen as a minority in one part of the country cannot be higher
than his right as a member of majority in another part of the country.
118.......If a measure tends to perpetuate
inequality and makes the goal of equality a mirage, such measure should not
receive the approval of the Court. The Court, in such circumstances, has to
mould the relief by indicating what would be the reasonable measure or action
which furthers the object of achieving equality. The concept of equality is not
a doctrinaire approach. It is a binding thread which runs through the entire
constitutional text. An affirmative action may, therefore, be constitutionally
valid by reason of Articles 15(4) and 16(4) and various directive principles of
State policy, but the Court cannot ignore the constitutional morality which
embraces in itself the doctrine of equality. It would be constitutionally
immoral to perpetuate inequality among majority people of the country in the
guise of protecting the constitutional rights of minorities and constitutional
rights of the backward and downtrodden. All the rights of these groups are part
of the right to social development which cannot render national interest and
public interest subservient to right of an individual or right of a
community."
Further, Paragraphs 42, 48 and 54 of a judgment of
the Apex Court in I.R. Ceolho (Dead) by Lrs. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2
SCC, p.1, also supports my view that in order to get basic foundation of a
doctrine, the Court may go to the root and get the intention of Constitution
makers from the debates of the Constituent Assembly as Constituent Assembly was
given constituent power by the people of India. This Court has already
discussed judgments on minority as well as debates of Constituent Assembly.
Paragraphs 42, 48 and 54 of a judgment of the Apex
Court in I.R. Ceolho (Dead) by Lrs. v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) are being
reproduced below:-
"42. The Constitution is a living document.
The constitutional provisions have to be construed having regard to the march
of time and the development of law.
48. There is a difference between parliamentary
and constitutional sovereignty. Our Constitution is framed by a Constituent
Assembly which was not Parliament. It is in the exercise of law-making power by
the Constituent Assembly that we have a controlled Constitution. Articles 14,
19, 21 represent the foundational values which form the basis of the rule of
law.
54. The distinction is drawn by the author between
the making of a Constitution by a Constituent Assembly which was not subject to
restraints by any external authority as a plenary law-making power and a power
to amend the Constitution, a derivative power derived from the Constitution and
subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution. No provision of the
Constitution framed in exercise of plenary law-making power can be ultra vires
because there is no touchstone outside the Constitution by which the validity
of provision of the Constitution can be adjudged...."
In T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (supra), it has been
settled by the Apex Court that that Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution
of India stands for equality and rule of law and are part of basic structure of
the Constitution and cannot be abrogated. It was further held that Article 21
is the heart of the Constitution of India. Articles 15, 21 read with Articles
14 and 19 of the Constitution of India if allowed to be abrogated would
completely change basic structure of the Constitution of India.
Thus, on the discussion made above, the Court's
conclusions are as follows:
1. Protection under Articles 29 and 30 of the
Constitution of India was not a privilege, but was a protection to the
Religious minority communities to attain equality with other religious groups
of India.
2. Protection under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution
of India was given to such minorities categorised in three categories by the
Constituent Assembly on the basis of population & strength which were
non-dominant groups in India at the time of partition of India, i.e., (i)
having 1/2 per cent population and strength, (ii) having population and
strength less than 1-1/2% and (iii) having population and strength above
1-1/2%. That will be the basis of to determine minority.
3. The Muslims religious communities in India in
2001 constituted 13.80 percent of the total population of India and 18.50
percent of total population in the State of Uttar Pradesh and is now a dominant
group dominating all other religious groups in Uttar Pradesh in all walk of
life including the constitutional democratic process.
4. The Muslims religious community has throughout
been a well-organized and strongly knitted community and not a weak religious
community. It was never regarded as weaker section or underprivileged section
of the society. Considering the religious population in India as well as in the
State of Uttar Pradesh, Muslims are only majority religious community in
comparison with other religious communities in India and other religious
communities are in minority in comparison to the Muslims.
5. 'Hinduism' did not represent a religion and
represents culture or civilization of India. The combination of such religious
groups including Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, Sufis, each and every tribal having
separate God and Goddess and Hindu Society divided on caste, creed and other
religions mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of the judgment (supra) which
cannot be considered one religious group according to the definition of the
religion decided by the Apex Court and as such the Muslims religious community
constitute only single largest religious majority in Uttar Pradesh. The
Constitution never intended to create a religious group based on theocracy in
the name of religion but its intention was to give protection to the religions,
population of which were about one and half percent or slightly above at the
time of partition and to equate them with other members of the society.
In view of the discussions made above, the Court
holds that as follows:-
(a) Muslims have now ceased to be religious
minorities in India and in any case in State of Uttar Pradesh on the basis of
their population & strength.
(b) Muslims also constitute an important part of
the citizenry of India and has a important role to play in developing India as
a strong nation. It is necessary that all citizens must be assimilated as
citizenry of India who are also liable to perform their duties towards the
nation and society at large as contemplated under Article 51-A of the
Constitution of India.
(c) As the Muslim Community are part and parcel of
the society and part of Indian citizenry, the Madarsas established by them are
entitled to have equal treatment in comparison to other Schools/institutions
established by other citizens of India.
To develop good temperament, humanism and sense of
equality to preserve rich heritage and India's composite culture and to develop
patriotism in the citizenry of India, it is a necessity that all
Schools/Institutions including Madarsas are liable to teach fundamental duties
and Moral Education (not religious) to their students who are future citizens
of the country to make India a strong and developed in the World. Union of
India and State of Uttar Pradesh are directed to take necessary steps
accordingly to make education of fundamental duties and Moral Education as
compulsory subjects in all the Schols and Institutions established by all
religious communities including Madarsas so that the citizenry of India and
younger generation may be developed according to the dream of the Constituent
Assembly which gave us Constitution of India. This Court is further of the view
that in order to develop India as a strong, developed and powerful nation, the
fundamental duties under Article 51-A of the Constitution of India may be made
enforceable. The U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education has made
fundamental duties one of the compulsory teaching subjects from the Session
2007-2008.
Constitution of India which is a living document
adopted by the people of India for social, economic, political justice and for
secularism and for democracy. Each and every citizen of India has liberty of
thought, belief, faith, worship and equality of status and as such the
petitioners or the opposite parties no. 4 to 6 or any member of the Indian
society have got a right to perform the religious rites but are not entitled to
get any privilege under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India. Every
citizen of India is also liable to perform certain duties as enshrined under
Article 51-A of the Constitution of India, the same is being quoted below:-
"51-A. Fundamental duties.- It shall be the
duty of every citizen of India-
(a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its
ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem;
(b) to cherish and follow the noble ideals which
inspired our national struggle for freedom;
(c) to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity
and integrity of India;
(d) to defend the country and render national
service when called upon to do so;
(e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common
brotherhood amongst al the people of India transcending religious, linguistic
and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the
dignity of women;
(f) to value and preserve the rich heritage of our
composite culture;
(g) to protect and improve the natural environment
including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for
living creatures;
(h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and
the spirit of inquiry and reform;
(i) to safeguard public property and to abjure
violence;
(j) to strive towards excellence in all spheres of
individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to
higher levels of endeavour and achievement;
(k) who is a parent or guardian to provide
opportunities for education to his child or, as the case may be, ward between
the age of six and fourteen years."
In the writ petition, allegations and counter
allegations have been made about the entitlement of the petitioners for getting
grant-in-aid for their Madarsa. The counter allegations in the counter
affidavits are that the petitioners have already embezzled huge amount of the
scholarship in the garb of Muslim minority Institution and the matter is
pending before the courts. The allegations of petitioners as to the opposite
parties no. 4 to 6 in the various affidavits are that it is not for the benefit
of entire Muslim society but it is for the benefit of particular families who
founded this Institution for the benefit of their own families where all the
posts were held and occupied by the petitioners' family members. In view of the
allegation and counter allegations made in the writ petition, it is urged by
the parties that this is the normal situation in some of the Madarsas.
Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Supplementary Affidavit
dated 1.2.2007 filed by Zulfikar Ahmad, Manager, Anjuman Madarsa Noorul Islam
Dehra Kalan, Ghazipur, are also very relevant in the matter of granting
recognition to Madarsas founded by Muslim religious community by the State of
Uttar Pradesh, same are being reproduced below:-
"9. That to the utter surprise the respondent
in collusion particularly the Secretary Sri Chandra Prakash by taking illegal
gratification of Rs.5 lacs has taken certain more institutions on grant
including Madarsa Khanam Zan of Varanasi and Madarsa Ahle Sunnat Ateequia
Gonda.
10.That same demand is being done in respect of
Petitioners institution as well and demand of Rs. 8 lacs is being done in
respect of other newly prepared 100 institutions vide G.O. Dated...whereas the
consideration of Madrsa recognised in year 1996 is being harass that its case
was refused on basis of delay vide order .......The copies of order cancelling
the Madrsa taken on grant amongst 67 and allotment of fresh Madarsa at its
place vide order dated 13.12.06 are also being annexed as.....to this affidavit
along with copy of order of this High Court...."
It has been stated in Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the
supplementary affidavit of Zulfikar Ahmad that the recognition was granted to
Madarsa after receiving illegal gratification of 5 lakhs for the grant-in-aid
and a demand of 8 lakhs was made from petitioners also. The State has prepared
a list of 100 more institutions and Madarsa to recognise for grant-in-aid. In
view of the serious nature of allegations made in the Supplementary Affidavit
of Zulfikar Ahmad, this Court considers it appropriate that an enquiry may be
institute in the matter of recogntion of Madrasas for Grant-in-Aid. This Court
directs the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh to institute an enquiry by an Officer
not below rank of Principal Secretary of Government of U.P. in the matter in
which grant-in-aid was given to Madarasas from the year 2003 up to now. The
State fund is created by contribution from all citizens belonging to all the
religions of the country. Since India is a secular country, State fund should
be utilised for secular purposes. Such funds could be given to all the
Institutions including Madarsas.
In the end this Court is of the opinion that
Muslims have accepted India as their own Mother Land as citizens at the time of
partition and contributed a lot in almost in all the fields in development of
India and also a dominant force in politics and other fields, not on the basis
of any religious group, but as citizens of India. They are also bound to
perform all such duties towards the country under Article 51-A of the
Constitution of India like other citizens of India for their more effective
role in making India a very strong and great nation forming part of citizenry
of India.
In such a situation and in view of the law laid
down by the Apex Court, proceedings of Constituent Assembly and others relevant
materials discussed above, this Court is of the firm view that the Muslims
whose population was 18.5% per cent in the year 2001 constitutes the only
religious majority group in comparison to other religious group in State of
U.P. and they have already ceased to be a religious minority group and they are
entitled to get equal treatment as the other non-minority religious groups are
being treated. This Court after considering each and every material and law has
come to the conclusion that in view of the discussions made above now Muslims
have ceased to be a religious minority and they are entitled to be treated like
other citizens of India. All protections given under Articles 29 and 30 of the
Constitution of India are not available to them.
For the reasons detailed above, this Court passed
the operative part of the judgmenton 5.4.2007 which runs as follows:-
"Since I have been scheduled to sit at
Lucknow Bench of this Court from 9th April, 2007, I consider it appropriate to
pronounce operative part of the judgment of the writ petition. This operative
part of the judgment shall be followed by the rest judgment.
For the reasons to be detailed in the body of the
judgment of the writ petition, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The
impugned order dated 17.5.2004, passed by the State of Uttar Pradesh
recognising Opp. Party nos. 4 to 6 on Grant-in-Aid as religious Muslim minority
institutions is quashed and it is held that any institution founded by
petitioners or Opp. Party nos. 4 to 6 are not entitled to be recognised for
Grant-in-Aid as religious minority institutions in the State of Uttar Pradesh
after applying twin criteria, i.e., population and strength of a religious
community as laid down by the founding fathers of the Constitution of India as
is clear from proceedings of Constituent Assembly to determine any religious
community as a religious minority. The Court finds that Muslims have ceased to
be a religious minority community in the State of Uttar Pradesh on
consideration of the materials on record which includes various Census Reports
including Census Reports of 1951 and 2001 and, therefore, directs State of
Uttar Pradesh to treat any member of Muslim community equal to other
non-minority religious communities without discriminating in any respect in
accordance with law being an integral part of citizenry of India
(i) A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued
commanding State of Uttar Pradesh to consider Applications of petitioners and
Opp. Party nos. 4 to 6 or other Applications of other institutions founded by
Muslim community for recognition on Grant-in-Aid in the similarly situated
manner as other non-minority institutions are being dealt with in accordance
with law without any discrimination.
(ii) A writ of mandamus is also issued to Union of
India and the State of Uttar Pradesh to take appropriate steps to modify the
notification dated 23.10.1993 issued by the Union of India accordingly.
(iii) A writ of mandamus is further issued
commanding the Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh to initiate an enquiry into the
serious allegations of corruption made by petitioners in Paragraphs 9 and 10 of
the Supplementary Affidavit dated 1.2.2007 filed by Zulfikar Ahmad, Manager,
Anjuman Madarsa Noorul Islam Dehra Kalan, Ghazipur, which runs as follows:-
"9. That to the utter surprise the respondent
in collusion particularly the Secretary Sri Chandra Prakash by taking illegal
gratification of Rs.5 lacs has taken certain more institutions on grant
including Madarsa Khanam Zan of Varanasi and Madarsa Ahle Sunnat Ateequia
Gonda.
10. That same demand is being done in respect of
Petitioners institution as well and demand of Rs. 8 lacs is being done in respect
of other newly prepared 100 institutions vide G.O. Dated...whereas the
consideration of Madrsa recognised in year 1996 is being harass that its case
was refused on basis of delay vide order .......The copies of order cancelling
the Madrsa taken on grant amongst 67 and allotment of fresh Madarsa at its
place vide order dated 13.12.06 are also being annexed as.....to this affidavit
along with copy of order of this High Court...."
The enquiry shall be made for orders passed
recognising the institutions for Grant-in-Aid from the year 2003 upto now. Such
enquiry shall be conducted by an Officer not below the rank of Principal
Secretary which shall be completed within three months' from the presentation
of a certified copy of this order and further action shall be taken
accordingly.
There shall be no order as to cost."
5.4.2007
bgs/-
No comments:
Post a Comment