BOARD OF THISTEES AYURVEDIC AND UNANI TIBIA COLLEGE DELHI Vs. STATE OF DELHI NOW DELHI ADMINISTRATION
LAWS(SC)-1961-10-13
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
October 23,1961
BOARD OF THISTEES,AYURVEDIC AND UNANI TIBIA COLLEGE,DELHI
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF DELHI
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
CHARANJIT LAL CHOWDHARY VS. UNION OF INDIA [RELIED ON]K C GAJAPATI NARAYAN DEO VS. STATE OF ORISSA [RELIED ON]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. SUBODH GOPAL BOSE [DISTINGUISHED]
DWARKADAS SHRINIVAS VS. SHOLAPUR SPINNING AND WEAVING COMPANY LIMITED [DISTINGUISHED]
Cited Judgements :-
SANT SADHU SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1970-1-2] [REFERRED TO]MOTA SINGH, ETC. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB, ETC. [LAWS(P&H)-1978-12-20] [REFERRED TO]
KATRA EDUCATION SOCIETY ALLAHABAD VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1966-1-9] [REFERRED]
RUSTOM CAVASJEE COOPER RUSTOM CAVASJEE COOPER T M GURUBUXANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1970-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
SREE NARAYANA DHARMA SAMAJAM VS. MOHANDAS [LAWS(KER)-2005-1-58] [REFERRED TO]
ALUKKAL KOYA VS. MARAKASUTHARBIYATHUL ISLAMIYA [LAWS(KER)-2018-9-382] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. DASRATH PRASAD YADAV [LAWS(ALL)-2004-2-142] [REFERRED TO]
DUVVUR PAPIREDDI AND OTHERS VS. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO [LAWS(APH)-1971-6-30] [REFERRED TO]
NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. ARMY WELFARE HOUSING ORGANIZATION [LAWS(SC)-2010-9-112] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD SADIQ VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(SC)-2007-9-35] [REFERRED TO]
DAMAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-1985-4-40] [RELIED ON]
KULJIT SINGH & ORS VS. GOVT OF N C T OF DELHI & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-12-23] [REFERRED TO]
MEENA OBEROI VS. CAMBRIDGE FOUNDATION SCHOOL [LAWS(DLH)-2019-12-11] [REFERRED TO]
SULTAN SINGH VS. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCHARGE JHANSI DIVISION JHANSI [LAWS(ALL)-1971-3-42] [REFERRED TO]
BISWANATH GHOSH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1979-5-22] [REFERRED TO]
PIJUS DAS GUPTA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1979-6-14] [REFERRED TO]
CHHOTABHAI JETHABHAI PATEL AND CO. A FIRM VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-1965-4-32] [REFERRED TO]
PALANI HILLS CONSERVATION COUNCIL REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, NAVROZ MODY VS. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, KODAIKANAL TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PLEASANT STAY (KODAI) HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RAKESH MI [LAWS(MAD)-1995-4-111] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY VS. H NARASIMHAIAH [LAWS(KAR)-1991-2-50] [REFERRED TO]
VINAY SAIHGAL VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-1983-8-5] [REFERRED TO]
N.RAMESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2020-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
WAMAN SHIVRAM MAHADIK VS. M.W. DESAI [LAWS(BOM)-1973-2-11] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-2-27] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-5-318] [REFERRED TO]
KASHMIR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2002-9-25] [REFERRED TO]
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. RAJUBHAI SOMABHAI BHARWAD [LAWS(SC)-2015-7-4] [REFERRED TO]
IIIACHI DEVI VS. JAIN SOCIETY PROTECTION OF ORPHANS INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2003-9-57] [REFERRED]
CHANDRESH KUMAR MALHOTRA VS. H P STATE CO OP BANK [LAWS(HPH)-1993-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
SATYADEVA SANNAKARU RYTHU SANGHAM VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2011-8-63] [REFERRED TO]
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN VS. SHRI PREM NARAYAN PANDEY [LAWS(CAL)-2011-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRAWADA VYAVASAYA KARMIKA SANGHAM VS. SATTI VENKATA REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2000-4-53] [REFERRED TO]
D. K. KAPOOR VS. CUTCHI VIRA OSWAL, DEHRAWASI JAIN MAHAJAN [LAWS(BOM)-1985-10-71] [REFERRED TO]
PANDURANG GANPATI CHAUGULE VS. VISHWASRAO PATIL MURGUD SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2020-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
S P MITTAL SHRI RAGHUBIR AUROBINDO SOCIETY AUROBINDO SOCIETY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1982-11-34] [REFERRED TO]
KALPETTA CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD. VS. JOINT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES [LAWS(KER)-2016-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
NAROTTAMDAS HARJIWANDAS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1963-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
SUMAN BAI NIRMALE VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY [LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-190] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHANGSHU MAZUMDAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1968-1-5] [REFERRED TO]
REGISTRAR OF THE ORIGINAL SIDE OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT VS. BHUPATI BHUSHAN DALAL [LAWS(CAL)-1973-8-23] [REFERRED TO]
SAKHARKHERDA EDUCATION SOCIETY SAKHARKHEDA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1966-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMABAI VS. MADAN MOHAN MANDIR SANSTHA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-10-141] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PRASAD AGARWA1 VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-1993-5-44] [REFERRED TO]
CHURCH OF NORTH OF INDIA VS. LAVAJIBHAI RATANJIBHAI [LAWS(SC)-2005-5-19] [REFERRED TO]
RANOJIRAO MADHAVRAO VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1964-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
RADHELAL GUPTA VS. STATE BAR COUNCIL OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2002-2-80] [REFERRED TO]
THE PARISTHITHY SAMRAKSHANA JANAKEEYA SAMITHY AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-9-89] [REFERRED TO]
KESAVA PANICKER VS. DAMODARA PANICKER [LAWS(KER)-1974-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
NATHMAL GOPIKISAN VS. N.D. RAHATE [LAWS(BOM)-1968-6-10] [REFERRED TO]
PK DASH, ADVOCATE VS. BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2016-5-156] [REFERRED TO]
SKS MICROFINANCE LIMITED VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(TLNG)-2023-2-122] [REFERRED TO]
INDUSIND BANK VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(TLNG)-2023-2-114] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHARANI VISHWAKARMA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1999-2-21] [REFERRED TO]
INDAL EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1968-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN, ARYA GIRLS SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL VS. DIRECTOR [LAWS(DLH)-2022-1-127] [REFERRED TO]
DURGA MALLESWARA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY REGD VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA DISTRICT VS. DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY LOK ADALATH AT VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA DISTRICT REPBY ITS SECRETARY [LAWS(APH)-2012-2-33] [REFERRED TO]
PANCHANAN JASH VS. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION W B [LAWS(CAL)-1965-9-11] [REFERRED TO]
MILAP CHANDRA JAIN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2001-9-34] [REFERRED TO]
TATA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL WORKERS UNION VS. TATA MEMORIAL CENTRE [LAWS(SC)-2010-8-73] [REFERRED TO]
LALIT NARAYAN MISHRA VS. STATE [LAWS(PAT)-1986-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
K C THOMAS VS. R L GADEOCK [LAWS(PAT)-1969-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
DAMYANTI NARANGA THE HINDI SAHITYA SAMMELAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1971-2-54] [DISTINGUISHED]
D L F HOUSING CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPN [LAWS(SC)-1975-12-7] [CITED]
APPOSTHALIYA DELVA SABHA AND ANR. VS. M. JOHNAPPAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-1992-1-57] [REFERRED TO]
MEENA AGRAWAL VS. CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SHIVPURI [LAWS(MPH)-2005-9-43] [REFERRED TO]
PERIYAR SELF RESPECT PROPAGANDA INSTITUTION TRICHY VS. STATEOF T N [LAWS(MAD)-1987-4-19] [REFERRED TO]
SATYADEVA SANNAKARU RYTHU SANGHAM VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2011-8-97] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY SPORTS CLUB VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2019-9-45] [REFERRED TO]
KANTA KOCHHAR VS. SIR GANGA RAM TRUST SOCIETY [LAWS(DLH)-2009-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
HUMAN CARE MEDICAL CHARITABLE TRUST VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(DLH)-2012-1-419] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This is a writ petition on behalf of two petitioners. The first petitioner is the Board of Trustees. Ayurvedic and Unani Tibbia College Delhi, through Hakim Mohammad Jamil Khan, stated to be its properly elected Secretary. The second petitioner is Hakim Mohammad Jamil Khan himself, who states that he is still one of the trustees or members of the said Board. The petition was initially filed on, behalf of the first petitioner. Subsequently, an amendment petition was moved which was allowed by us. As a result of the amendments allowed petitioner No. 2 was added as one of the petitioners, and certain new grounds of attack were added in para. 14 of the petition. To these grounds we shall advert later.
(2.)The short facts giving rise to the petition are these. One Hakim Muhammad Ajmal Khan was a physician (of Unani medicine) of all-India repute. He lived in Delhi and started a pharmaceutical institute in the town known as Hindustani Dawakhana in the year 1903. He also established a medical college known as the Tibbia College. He died in the year 1927. But before his death, in the year 1911, he along with certain other persons formed a society styled Anjuman-i- Tibbia and had it registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Act XXI of 1860). The name of the society was changed in 1915, and it became known as the Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic and Unani Tibbia College, Delhi. For convenience we shall refer to it as the Board. The Board ran the Tibbia College and an attached hostel. The pharmaceutical institute was also managed by it, though at one stage petitioner No. 2 claimed the institute as his private property. Certain rules and regulations were made for the functioning of the Board, which were amended from time to time. The main objects of the Board were thus stated in the rules :-
(a) to establish colleges for the purpose of imparting higher education in the Unani and Ayurvedic systems of medicine to the inhabitants of India;
(b) to improve the indigenous systems of medicine on scientific lines and for that purpose to establish one or more pharmaceutical institutes (dawakhanas); and
(c) to have medical books compiled and translated and to adopt other means which might enhance the popularity of those systems and add to the information of the people in general on hygiene etc.
The maximum number of members (called trustees in the rules) was 35 to be elected from all the then Provinces of India. It was stated in R. 5 that one-third of the members of the Board should be Hakims and Vaids. Tile financial year of the Board was to be from April 1 to March 31 of each year, and the subscription to be paid by a member of the Board was fixed at Rs. 12 per annum payable in advance before April 30 of each year. Rule 6 laid down the circumstances in which the office of a member should be deemed to be vacant and one of such circumstances was the failure of a member to pay his annual subscription before the date fixed for such payment. There were also rules regarding (a) powers of inspection of the college, hostel etc., (b) ordinary meetings of the Board of Trustees, and (c) matters which could be dealt with by the Board and its sub-committees. It is not necessary to state these rules in detail. Rule 13 provided for the formation of a Managing Committee consisting of nine members and six officials for a period of three years and the functions of the Managing Committee were also prescribed in the rules. The office-bearers of the Board and the Managing Committee were to be the same and consisted of (i) a President, (ii) a Senior Vice-President, (iii) a Junior Vice-President, (iv) a Secretary, (v) a Financial Secretary, and (vi) a Joint Secretary. It was laid down in R. 26 that the office-bearers of the Board were to be elected for three years by the members. The rules also laid down the powers and duties of the President. Secretary, Financial Secretary and Joint Secretary. One of the rules said that the office of the Secretary of the Board shall, as far as possible, vest in the lineal descendants of Hakim Muhammad Ajmal Khan. Hakim Mohammad Jamil Khan, son of Hakim Mohammad Ajmal Khan and petitioner No. 2 before us, was the first Secretary of the Board.
(3.)In the year 1948 Shri Rameshwar Dayal, the then Collector of Delhi, and Dr. Yudhvir Singh, the then President of the Delhi Municipal Committee, and certain other persons were elected as members of the Board. Dr. Yudhvir Singh was elected President and one Shri Mool Chand Gagerna was appointed Joint Secretary. Soon after the elections in 1948, a struggle ensued between different groups of members for obtaining control of the Board and the college, and for possession of the Hindustani Dawakhana. Certain criminal proceedings followed. On October 18, 1949 a suit was brought in the court of the senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi under S. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Secretary and 31 members of the Board. In that suit an application was made for the appointment of a receiver and on October 19, 1949 the Subordinate Judge appointed two local advocates as joint receivers with plenary powers. These receivers took possession of the dawakhana and the college between October 19 and 23, 1949. When the suit was still pending, the Delhi State Legislature passed an Act called the Tibbia college Act, 1952 (Delhi Act No. 5 of 1952), hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act. this Act came into force on October 10, 1952. The constitutional validity of the Act is the principal question for decision on this writ petition and we shall presently refer to the provisions thereof. We may only state here that by S. 9 of the impugned Act, the Board stood dissolved and all property, movable and immovable, and all rights, powers and privileges of the Board vested in a new Board constituted under the Act. This new Board is called the Tibbia College Board and we shall refer to it as the new Board. After the passing of the impugned Act, the suit instituted before the Subordinate judge, Delhi, was withdrawn. On the withdrawal of the suit an application was made for making over possession of the properties to the new Board . That application was allowed in spite of the objection of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 unsuccessfully moved the High Court of Punjab against that order.
(2.)The short facts giving rise to the petition are these. One Hakim Muhammad Ajmal Khan was a physician (of Unani medicine) of all-India repute. He lived in Delhi and started a pharmaceutical institute in the town known as Hindustani Dawakhana in the year 1903. He also established a medical college known as the Tibbia College. He died in the year 1927. But before his death, in the year 1911, he along with certain other persons formed a society styled Anjuman-i- Tibbia and had it registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Act XXI of 1860). The name of the society was changed in 1915, and it became known as the Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic and Unani Tibbia College, Delhi. For convenience we shall refer to it as the Board. The Board ran the Tibbia College and an attached hostel. The pharmaceutical institute was also managed by it, though at one stage petitioner No. 2 claimed the institute as his private property. Certain rules and regulations were made for the functioning of the Board, which were amended from time to time. The main objects of the Board were thus stated in the rules :-
(a) to establish colleges for the purpose of imparting higher education in the Unani and Ayurvedic systems of medicine to the inhabitants of India;
(b) to improve the indigenous systems of medicine on scientific lines and for that purpose to establish one or more pharmaceutical institutes (dawakhanas); and
(c) to have medical books compiled and translated and to adopt other means which might enhance the popularity of those systems and add to the information of the people in general on hygiene etc.
The maximum number of members (called trustees in the rules) was 35 to be elected from all the then Provinces of India. It was stated in R. 5 that one-third of the members of the Board should be Hakims and Vaids. Tile financial year of the Board was to be from April 1 to March 31 of each year, and the subscription to be paid by a member of the Board was fixed at Rs. 12 per annum payable in advance before April 30 of each year. Rule 6 laid down the circumstances in which the office of a member should be deemed to be vacant and one of such circumstances was the failure of a member to pay his annual subscription before the date fixed for such payment. There were also rules regarding (a) powers of inspection of the college, hostel etc., (b) ordinary meetings of the Board of Trustees, and (c) matters which could be dealt with by the Board and its sub-committees. It is not necessary to state these rules in detail. Rule 13 provided for the formation of a Managing Committee consisting of nine members and six officials for a period of three years and the functions of the Managing Committee were also prescribed in the rules. The office-bearers of the Board and the Managing Committee were to be the same and consisted of (i) a President, (ii) a Senior Vice-President, (iii) a Junior Vice-President, (iv) a Secretary, (v) a Financial Secretary, and (vi) a Joint Secretary. It was laid down in R. 26 that the office-bearers of the Board were to be elected for three years by the members. The rules also laid down the powers and duties of the President. Secretary, Financial Secretary and Joint Secretary. One of the rules said that the office of the Secretary of the Board shall, as far as possible, vest in the lineal descendants of Hakim Muhammad Ajmal Khan. Hakim Mohammad Jamil Khan, son of Hakim Mohammad Ajmal Khan and petitioner No. 2 before us, was the first Secretary of the Board.
(3.)In the year 1948 Shri Rameshwar Dayal, the then Collector of Delhi, and Dr. Yudhvir Singh, the then President of the Delhi Municipal Committee, and certain other persons were elected as members of the Board. Dr. Yudhvir Singh was elected President and one Shri Mool Chand Gagerna was appointed Joint Secretary. Soon after the elections in 1948, a struggle ensued between different groups of members for obtaining control of the Board and the college, and for possession of the Hindustani Dawakhana. Certain criminal proceedings followed. On October 18, 1949 a suit was brought in the court of the senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi under S. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Secretary and 31 members of the Board. In that suit an application was made for the appointment of a receiver and on October 19, 1949 the Subordinate Judge appointed two local advocates as joint receivers with plenary powers. These receivers took possession of the dawakhana and the college between October 19 and 23, 1949. When the suit was still pending, the Delhi State Legislature passed an Act called the Tibbia college Act, 1952 (Delhi Act No. 5 of 1952), hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act. this Act came into force on October 10, 1952. The constitutional validity of the Act is the principal question for decision on this writ petition and we shall presently refer to the provisions thereof. We may only state here that by S. 9 of the impugned Act, the Board stood dissolved and all property, movable and immovable, and all rights, powers and privileges of the Board vested in a new Board constituted under the Act. This new Board is called the Tibbia College Board and we shall refer to it as the new Board. After the passing of the impugned Act, the suit instituted before the Subordinate judge, Delhi, was withdrawn. On the withdrawal of the suit an application was made for making over possession of the properties to the new Board . That application was allowed in spite of the objection of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 unsuccessfully moved the High Court of Punjab against that order.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.