Former Minister Mumtaz Ali Khan rejects Minority Commission Report on Alleged scams in Wakf properties
Mr. Anwar Manipadi, Chairman of Karnataka Minority Commission submitted a report on the status of Wakf properties which runs into 7,000 pages. I have gone through the summary of the report with highlights of the report. This report has created uproar in the state and elsewhere in the country. I would like to present my comments on the legality, rationality, reliability and methodology adopted by Mr. Anwar Manipadi.
1. This report is not the report of the Commission. Barring one member, the other members of the commission were not involved in the preparation, consideration and submission of the report to the Government. The members were totally unaware of the report. It was not discussed in the meeting of the Commission. Members were not even shown the report. The term of the members was over on February 24, 2012, but they were allowed to continue against the Act. In the light of these legal apses, I can firmly conclude that it is not the report of the Commission. It is at best the report of Mr. Anwar Manipadi. A distinction has to be made between the Commission and the individual. The term “Commission” as per definition of the Act, includes the members also.
2. Even admitting it is the report of an individual, the question is whether it is the report prepared by Mr. Anwar Manipadi. It is learnt that the report was prepared by Karnataka State Wakf Properties Protection Committee headed by Mr. M.J. Ali. He is a social activist committed to protection of wakf properties. I learn the Committee had started identifying, processing and preparing the
report since 2007. I am the author of several books. To write a single 200- page book it takes a minimum of four months. If so, how much time it should take to write 7,000-page report! How can Mr. Anwar Manipadi prepare such a voluminous report in a couple
of months? In these circumstances, it can be said safely that by and large it is not even the report of Mr. Anwar Manipadi.
3. Reliability: Any report submitted to Government will have far-reaching significance, implications and consequences. Such a report should undergo the test of reliability. If M.J. Ali has gone wrong anywhere, Mr. Anwar Manipadi will embarrass the government. The report has not undergone the scientific method of checks and balances, examination, verification, personal interview and so on.
4. jurisdiction of the Commission: The Minority Commission has to perform its functions as laid down in the Minority Commission Act. In brief the functions are;
a) To examine the working of various safeguards provided in the Constitution and in the laws passed by the State Legislature for protection of the minorities.
b) To make recommendations to ensure effective implementation and enforcement of these safeguards.
c) To monitor the working of these safeguards and policies and schemes for the minority.
d) To conduct studies and research to find out if there is discrimination against minorities.
e) To make a factual assessment of the representations of the Minorities in the various sectors of the government.
f) To ensure communal harmony in the state.
g) To make periodical reports to the government.
h) To study any other matter of importance and make recommendations. Mr. Anwar Manipadi has obviously exceeded his jurisdiction in Wakf matters. Wakf Board is an independent body governed by Wakf Act, 1995 which is a Central Act. The
primary function of Board is totake care of Wakf properties. The Minority Commission can look into the problems and submit the report to the Govt.
The Chairman has no powers to act against any officers. Further, the Commission has no power of the Civil Court to summon and direct any officer. When the Commission has no power. Manipadi as an individual has absolutely no power to assume
this function.
It is unfortunate that Manipadi has brought out the names of tall leaders of the Muslim community in particular and a few non-Muslims leaders without proper verifications. He should have interviewed these leaders like, C.K. Jaffer Shariff, former Railway Minister, K. Rahman Khan, Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha and others. I admit that nobody is above law. But there is defined and refined method of tackling these persons of high position. Names of many MLAs have also surfaced. Mr. N.A. Harries has already filed defamation case against Mr. Anwar Manipadi for Rs. one crore in the High Court. Mr. Manipadi has also raised names of a few IAS and KAS officers. If they are found wrong after verification they should be punished. Taking the name of senior IAS officers like Md. Sanaullah, Principal Secretary, DPAR is shocking. Taha Education Trust has taken land from the Wakf Board on lease basis for roviding training to Minority candidates who appear for competitive examinations. It is rendering service to the community. Sanaulla had no role to play. Then, why his name is mentioned?
Another important name is Dr. Mumtaz Ahmed Khan who is well known for Al-Ameen Educational Movement. The organization, not the individual, has taken land on lease basis. Then how does Mr. Manipadi take the name of Dr. Mumtaz Ahmed Khan.
Survey and assessment: Mr. Manipadi has announced that the Wakf properties in question are worth Rs. 2 lakh crores. It is a fantastic amount. But the community is hoodwinked by this figure. He has not got the survey done nor is there survey done already. How did he get information about the extent of Wakf lands encroached? Secondly, how did he arrive at this fantastic figure of Rs. 2 lakh crores? Was there any assessor or valuer or any expert with him? I learn there was nothing of this sort. He has also made certain recommendations to the govt. The most important are; 1. To keep the present Karnataka State Wakf Board under suspension for 12 months. 2. To enable Karnataka Lok Ayukta to investigate the charges leveled by the Commission. 3. A Task Force r Wakf properties to retrieve the properties of Wakf, and 4. To form a High Power Committee to work out the modalities and run the tate Wakf Board in a most transparent manner. None of these recommendations can be implemented by the govt. The Wakf Act, 1995 provides for certain procedures for supersession. There is no question of High Power Committee during a superseding period. The Act provides for appointment of an administrator by the Govt. Mr. Manipadi should have consulted some lawyer who is familiar with the Wakf Act. His demand for removal of the present Chairman of the Wakf Board, Mr. Reyaz Khan is legally impossible. This issue is governed by the Act. Mr. Anwar Manipadi has no right as the Chairman of the Commission to demand imaginary actions against the board and the Chairman. It is observed that Mr. Zameer Pasha, IAS who is Secretary of the Minority Department was involved in the preparation of this report. If this is so, Mr. Manipadi is creating problems for Mr. Zameer Pasha. Thus the report, submitted by Mr. Anwar Manipadi is in his personal capacity. It is somebody’s report. It is not the Commission report. Excepting one member, other members have no voice, have no knowledge. Hence it is not Commission report. The report is unreliable, unverified, has no legal sanctity. But it is a product of concoction, prejudice.
COMMENTS