Member moves HC challenging Haj panel’s dissolution

Nagpur: A member of the Maharashtra State Haj Committee has challenged its dissolution by the government in the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court.
According to the member, there’s been no official notification stating the cancellation of this year’s annual Haj pilgrimage and therefore, such a premature dissolution of the committee is likely to upset pilgrims.
A division bench comprising justices Sunil Shukre and Anil Kilor on Tuesday issued notices to the respondents, including the state government, asking them to give a reply within two weeks.
Anis Khan Sher Khan, through counsel Sangram Sirpurkar, contended that Nagpur is a centrally-located centre and hence, almost 3,500 Haj pilgrims from adjoining states like Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh prefer to fly from here.
The petitioner was nominated as a member of the Maharashtra State Haj Committee in February last year after it was duly constituted by the government. The committee comprised of 11 members. Jamal Siddiqui was elected as chairman of the panel. Khan, who is also a councillor at Shendurjana Ghat Nagar Parishad, attended the committee’s first meeting. He was discharging his duties effectively as a member since February 2019.
The petitioner was also a part of the committee that made arrangements for the Haj last year. It also trained pilgrims and made further arrangements till March this year. On June 12, Khan received a communication from the government stating that the Maharashtra State Haj Committee has been dissolved through a June 10 notification.
According to Khan, this was for the first time that he came to know about the panel’s dissolution. After enquiring from the chairman, it came to the fore that latter was issued a show cause notice in his individual capacity on May 21 by the respondents, labelling charges against discharge of his duties.
The petitioner, however, was not provided a copy of any show cause notice. He procured it from the chairman. He, however, was still clueless about the reason for the panel’s dissolution and hence, challenged it in the HC.