Delhi District Court
Sh. Inder Mohan Singh vs Directorate Of Gurudwara Election on 25 January, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJINDER SINGH
ADJ02 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS. DJ. No. - 1287/2017
In the matter of:
Sh. Inder Mohan Singh
S/o S. Darshan Singh
E15, Sham Nagar,
P.O Tilak Nagar, New Delhi 110018 ............ Plaintiff
Versus
1.Directorate of Gurudwara Election Government of NCT of Delhi F Block, Vikas Bhawan, I.P Estate, New Delhi - 110002 Through its Director
2. The Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee Gurdwara Rakab Ganj Sahib, New Delhi - 110001.
Through its President
3. Ms. Ranjeet Kaur WZ67A, Gali No. 26, 27, Sant Garh, New Delhi - 110018.
4. Sh. Sarvjit Singh B165, Farmer Apartment, Sector 13, Rohini, New Delhi - 110085.
5. Sh. Shurbir Singh, IAS Director Gurdwara Elections, Government of NCT of Delhi, FBlock, Vikas Bhawan, I.P Estate, New Delhi - 110002. .......... Defendants Date of filing of Suit : 25.03.2017 Date of reserving Order : 18.01.2021 Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 25.01.2021 Brief facts: Plaintiffs' case:
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking the following reliefs: Order Page..... 1/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17
(a) It is prayed that the entire record pertaining to the election of two posts of members of defendant no. 2, whereby defendant no. 3 & 4 were coopted as members of defendant no. 2 on 11.03.2017 be summoned. Also declare the coopting of defendant no. 3 & 4 as void by quashing the notification no. F.1/178/DGE/2017/1189 dated 11.03.2017. The order dated 09.03.2017 passed by defendant no. 1 on the objections filed by the plaintiff may also be setaside.
(b) Declare the plaintiff as duly coopted member of defendant no. 2.
(c) Decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from inducting defendant no. 3 & 4 as members of defendant no. 2.
1.2 Vide notification no. F.1/178/DGE/2017/1189 dated 11.03.2017, defendant no. 3 & 4 were coopted as members of defendant no. 2. Earlier the plaintiff had filed the objections dated 08.03.2017 against the nominations of defendant no. 3 & 4. The said objections were decided and rejected by defendant no. 1 & 5 on 09.03.2017.
1.3 The plaintiff was also a candidate for being coopted as member of defendant no. 2. It is claimed that the plaintiff fulfills all the required Order Page..... 2/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17 qualifications for contesting and being coopted as member of defendant no. 2. So far the plaintiff being an "Amritdhari Sikh" has not incurred any disqualification from contesting the election for membership of defendant no. 2.
1.4 Defendant no. 1 is a public authority. Defendant no. 2 is a statutory body constituted under Section 3 of Delhi Sikh Gurudwaras Act 1971. The qualification for being coopted as member of defendant no. 2 is prescribed in Rule 3(2) of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee (Cooption of Members Rules 1974). In fact the qualifications are the same as provided under Section 10 of Delhi Sikh Gurudwaras Act 1971. If any of the members do not fulfill the qualifications / criteria, the Directors may conduct inquiry in this regard. The Directors may disqualify any member if the said member is found to be lacking in any particular criteria.
1.5 Vide notification no. F.1/55/2016/DGE/306 dated 01.02.2017 published in the Delhi Gazette Extraordinary PartIV, issued by Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi, the elections for the members of defendant no. 2 were notified. The elections were held on 26.02.2017 and the results were declared on 01.03.2017. Section 14 of Delhi Sikh Gurudwaras Act 1971 provides for coopting of members by the elected members. The schedule for coopting of members was fixed (details of the dates are Order Page..... 3/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17 mentioned in para no. 11 of the plaint). The plaintiff also filed his nomination papers on 06.03.2017. The other candidates were defendant no. 3 & 4 they also filed their nominations on 06.03.2017. Overall there were only three candidates for two posts i.e the plaintiff and defendant no. 3 & 4.
1.6 In para no. 14 of the plaint, the plaintiff has mentioned the specific grounds for challenging the candidature and coopting of defendant no. 3 & 4. With regard to defendant no. 3 it is stated that firstly, she is a paid servant / employee of Guru Harkishan Public School which is being run by Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee. As such she is disqualified under Section 10 (1)(i) of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Act 1971. Secondly, defendant no. 3 dyes her hair and trims her eyebrows. This renders defendant no. 3 as "Patit" under Section 2 (J) of Delhi Sikh Gurudwaras Act 1971 and accordingly disqualified under Section 10(1)(h) of Delhi Sikh Gurudwaras Act 1971. Thirdly, defendant no. 3 is not an "Amritdhari Sikh" which is a mandatory requirement under Section 10(1)(b) of Delhi Sikh Gurudwaras Act 1971. 1.7 With regard to defendant no. 4 it is stated that firstly, defendant no. 4 dyes his beard as such he is a "patit" under Section 2(J) of Delhi Sikh Gurudwaras Act 1971 and accordingly disqualified for violation of under Section 10(1)(h) of Delhi Sikh Gurudwaras Act. Secondly, Order Page..... 4/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17 defendant no. 4 is not an "Amritdhari Sikh" and he is disqualified in terms of Section 10 (1)(b) of Delhi Sikh Gurudwaras Act 1971. 1.8 The objections filed by the plaintiff against defendant no. 3 & 4 were taken on record and time was granted to them for replying. It is stated that none of the defendants particularly defendant no. 3 & 4 filed any objections against the candidature of the plaintiff, during the stipulated time. On 08.03.2017 at 04:39 PM i.e more than 04 hours after the period for filing of objections was closed, defendant no. 3 & 4 filed objections against the plaintiff. The said objections filed against the plaintiff were rejected since they were filed at a belated stage. The objections filed by the plaintiff were also dismissed. 1.9 The plaintiff has relied upon order dated 16.02.2010 of Central Information Commission passed in appeal no. CIC/SG/A/2009/003014 in the matter of "Kulwant Singh Baath Vs. Guru Harkishan Public School" West Jyoti Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi - 110094. It is stated that in this order it was held that Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee has complete and permissive control over the affairs of Guru Harkishan Public School as such the school is covered under the RTI Act. It is stated that in view of this order the employees of Guru Harkishan Public School shall be treated as employees of Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, this will Order Page..... 5/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17 disqualify defendant no. 3 from contesting elections for membership of defendant no. 2.
1.10 It is further stated that the Memorandum of Association and By Laws of Guru Harkishan Public Society clearly shows that it is under the governance of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee. In Rule 1(iii) of the bylaws of the society, the term "Committee" has been defined as Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee. Rule 4 (a) provides that the affairs of Society shall be carried on by the governing body which shall be nominated by Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee. 09 out of the 19 members of the Governing body shall be the members of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee. In the executive board also 09 members shall be from the members of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee. Rule 11 provides that vacancies shall also be filled by Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee. Rule 24 provides that Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee shall have preferentialsay in financial matters also. At present 11 members of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee are in the Society. The entire recruitment of staff in Guru Harkishan Public Schools is made by Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee through Education Cell of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee. The letters dated 11.08.2015 and 11.08.2014 issued by Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Order Page..... 6/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17 Management Committee clearly show that post fixation and departmental proceedings for the employees of Guru Harkishan Public School is done by Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee. The President and General Secretary of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee filed affidavit dated 21.05.2015 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in EFA(OS) no. 7 therein they undertook to clear the dues of the schools of Guru Harkishan Public School Society. It is also claimed that defendant no. 3 is working in the Minority Cell of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee for the last 03 years.
1.11 Further, the plaintiff has quoted provisions of law and repeated the averments already made in the plaint.
2. Joint written statement filed by defendant no. 1 & 5. 2.1 Defendant no. 1 & 5 have filed a joint written statement therein statutory laws and rules made therein are quoted. It is stated that only three nominations were received on 07.03.2017. All three were found valid. Two representatives from Election Commission of India were also invited to assist the directorate in the conducting of elections for co opting members. Defendant no. 5 cannot be sued in personal capacity. 2.2 The contents of para no. 1 are denied for want of knowledge. Rest of the contents of the paragraphs are matter of record. Order Page..... 7/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17 2.3 The contents of para no. 2 & 3 of the plaint are matter of record. 2.4 Para no. 5, 6 & 7 of the plaint are reproduction of legal provisions. Para no. 8 of the plaint is denied. Para no. 9, 11, 12 & 13 of the plaint are matter of record. Para no. 10 of the plaint is reproduction of legal provisions. Para no. 14 & 15 of the plaint are denied. Para no. 16, 17 & 19 of the plaint are matter of record. Para no. 18 of the plaint is admitted to the extent that the plaintiff filed replies to the objections of defendants no. 3 & 4. It is admitted that the plaintiff filed copies of order dated 16.02.2010 of Central Information Commission. Para no. 21 to 24 of the plaint are denied. It is admitted that email dated 11.03.2017 sent by the plaintiff was received. Para no. 25 to 31 of the plaint are denied. Para no. 32 & 33 of the plaint are legal paragraphs hence need no reply. 2.5 Further, defendant no. 1 & 5 have plainly and simply denied the contents of the plaint and the case of the plaintiff.
3. Joint written statement filed by defendant no. 3 & 4. 3.1 It is admitted that defendant no. 3 is an employee of Guru Harkishan Public School, Tilak Nagar, Delhi.
3.2 The plaintiff has not given any details as to when did he become an "Amritdhari Sikh". In the communication dated 08.03.2017 defendant Order Page..... 8/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17 no. 3 had claimed that she partook "Amrit" at the age of 5 years. Defendant no. 4 filed his certificate on 08.03.2016 (SIC) showing his status as "Amritdhari Sikh". Earlier no certificate regarding partaking of "Amrit" were issued by the religious Authorities. 3.3 With regard to the employment status of defendant no. 3 it is submitted that she was not appointed by Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee or any other Gurudwara. She is working as a primary teacher in Guru Harkishan Public School. These schools have got their own management committees which are constituted under the Delhi School Education Act. The payments made by Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee to Guru Harkishan Public School cannot be treated to show the fact that the school is governed by Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee. Section 24 of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Act 1971 refers to Gurudwaras and Educational institutions, still bar under Section 10 of the said act has been created only against the employees of Gurudwaras and not against the employees of educational / research institutions.
3.4 It is claimed that at one point of time defendant no. 2 constituted a committee for analyzing the provisions of Delhi Sikh Gurudwaras Act 1971. Recommendations were made to amend the provisions of Section 10 (1)(i) of Delhi Sikh Gurudwaras Act, 1971. These recommendations Order Page..... 9/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17 were also supported by the plaintiff who was the coordinator of the said Committee. Any indirect control of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee over Guru Harkishan Public Schools cannot be construed to show that the school staff is employee of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee. Defendant no. 3 has worked in the Minority Cell purely on honorary basis without any payment. The order dated 16.02.2010 of Central Information Commission does not apply to this case.
3.5 Defendant no. 3 & 4 did not approach any members seeking their votes.
3.6 Further, defendant no. 3 & 4 have plainly and simply denied the case of the plaintiff.
4. Specific query was put to all the Ld. Counsels through Reader of the court regarding the written statement of defendant no. 2. It was informed that no written statement on behalf of defendant no. 2.
5. Replication to the written statement of defendant no. 3 & 4 filed by the plaintiff.
5.1 It is stated that defendant no. 3 was appointed as teacher in Guru Harkishan Public School by defendant no. 2 vide letter bearing no. 5990/1113 dated 13.07.2000. This order was conveyed to defendant no. 3 by the Principal of Guru Harkishan Public School through Order Page..... 10/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17 memorandum no. GHPS/NP/00 dated 17.07.2000. As such Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee is the appointing authority of defendant no. 3. It is stated that as per Sikh Rehat Maryada published by Dharam Prachar Committee of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee, Article XXIV ChapterXIII para(d) Section 6 provides that the person to be baptized should not be of very young age; he or she should have attained a plausible degree of discretion. The partaking of "Amrit" by defendant no. 3 at the age of 5 years is not proper. 5.2 With regard to defendant no. 4 it is stated that he produced certificate dated 08.03.2017 regarding his partaking of "Amrit" at Gurudwara "Panjkaura Saheb" Ambala, Haryana. The address of Sikh Mission Haryana & Himachal Pradesh is not mentioned on the said certificate, whereas it is claimed to have been issued by Sikh Mission Haryana & Himachal Pradesh. On 08.03.2017 from 12:00 PM to 12:45 PM defendant no. 4 was physically present for scrutiny of nominations. In such circumstances how he procured the certificate from Krukshetra, Haryana which is about 200 kilometers away from Delhi (SIC). The telephone number 01744290027 mentioned on the certificate does not exist.
6. Replication to the written statement of defendant no. 1 & 5 also filed by the plaintiff.
Order Page..... 11/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17
7. ISSUES:
7.1 Vide order dated 02.09.2019, Ld. Predecessor framed the following issues:
1. Whether the nomination forms dated 06.03.2017 could have been legally entertained by defendant no. 1 & 5 for the admitted failures of defendant no. 3 & 4 to produce the certificates on 06.03.2017 for showing their having partaken of the Amrit ? OPD-3 & 4
2. Whether he candidatures of defendant no. 3 & 4 were liable to be declared as disqualified as on 06.03.2017 and 08.03.2017 due to their failures to produce the records, with their Nomination Forms for showing their having partaken Amrit ? OPD-3 & 4
3. Whether the acts of defendant no. 1 & 5 in entertaining additional documents (certificate / records) on 09.03.2017 submitted by defendant no. 3 & 4 for supporting their eligibility, are contrary to the provisions of Rule 12 (8) of DSGMC (Co-option of members), Rules 1974 ? OPD- 1 &5
4. Whether the orders dated 09.03.2017 is liable to be set aside as being violative of Sections 10 (1) (d) and 10 (1) (I) of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1971 ? OPP
5. Whether the notification dated 11.03.2017 declaring the co-option of defendant no. 3 & 4 is liable to be set-aside ? If yes, it's effect. OPP
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be declared as having been co-opted as per para-'b' of the Prayer Clause of the present election petition ? OPP Order Page..... 12/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17
8. EVIDENCE:
8.1 Plaintiff's Evidence:
8.2 Plaintiff examined himself as PW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. He relied upon the documents i.e Ex. PW 1/1 & Ex. PW1/1A copies of the impugned orders dated 09.03.2017 and the impugned Gazette Notification issued vide Notification dated 11.03.2017 bearing no. F.1/178/DGE/2017/1189, Ex. PW1/2 Copy of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1971, Ex. PW1/3 Copy of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee (cooption of members) Rules, 1974, Ex. PW1/4 (Collectively) Copies of notifications bearing nos.
F.1/55/2016/DGE/306 & F.1/55/2016/DGE/307 both dated 01.02.2017 in terms of Rule 12 of the said rules, Ex. PW1/5 Copy of notification dated 03.03.2017, Ex. PW1/6 (collectively) Copies of nomination papers dated 06.03.2017 and other required documents, Ex. PW1/7 (Collectively) Copies of objection letter dated 08.03.2017 along with supporting documents, Ex. PW1/8 (Collectively) Copies of objection letter dated 08.03.2017 along with supporting documents, Ex. PW1/9 (collectively) Copy of proceeding dated 08.03.2017 recorded by the Director Gurudwara Elections in respect of Defendant no. 3 & 4, Ex. PW 1/10 (Collectively) Copies of identical objections filed by both defendants no. 3 & 4, Ex. PW1/11 (Collectively) copies of replies dated 09.03.2017, Order Page..... 13/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17 Ex. PW1/12 (Collectively) Copies of letter dated 09.03.017 along with decision of CIC dated 16.02.2010, Ex. PW1/13 (collectively) Copy of MOA/ByeLaws of Governing body of Gurudwara Harkishan Public Society, Ex. PW1/14 copy of internet extracts of the details of GHPS Society, Ex. PW1/15 Copy of internet extract of the recruitment, Ex. PW 1/16 & Ex. PW1/17 copies of letter dated 11.05.2015 and 11.08.2014 issued by DSGMC, Ex. PW1/18 (Collectively) Copies of affidavits dated 21.05.2015 and the order dated 22.05.2015 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Ex. PW1/19 Copy of reply dated 18.02.2017 filed by the DSGMC in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8205 of 2016, Ex. PW1/20 Copy of email dated 11.03.2017, Ex. PW1/21 Copy of letter dated 10.03.2017, Ex. PW1/22 Copy of letter dated 16.03.2017, Ex. PW1/23 Copy of letter dated 20.03.2017, Ex. PW1/24 Copy of receipt dated 20.03.2017 & Ex. PW1/25 Copy of relevant extract of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.
8.3 PW1 was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsels for defendant no. 1, 3, 4 & 5.
8.4 Vide order dated 16.03.2017, PE was closed.
9. Defendants' Evidence:
9.1 Defendant no.1 examined Sh. Jogender Singh as DW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A. He relied upon the Order Page..... 14/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17 documents i.e Ex. DW1/1 (collectively) photocopy of relevant extracts of Section 1 to 10 of Delhi Sikh Gurudwaras Act, 1971, Ex. DW1/2 (Collectively) photocopy of nomination papers filed by defendant no. 3, Ex. PW1/3 deexhibited being photocopy of letter dated 06.03.2017, Ex.
PW1/4 (Collectively) Copy of hearing and decision taken by he RO on the objections filed by the petitioner against defendant no. 3 & 4 and replies of defendant no. 3 & 4, Ex. PW1/5 List of validly nominated candidates in Form CXV, Ex. PW1/6 Email dated 11.03.2017, Ex. PW 1/7 deexhibited being photocopy of reply to email dated 29.03.2017, Ex. PW1/8 deexhibited being photocopy of request of petitioner for supply of certified copy of proceedings dated 08.03.2017 and Ex. PW1/9 deexhited being photocopy of record of proceedings dated 11.03.2017 and letter dated 23.03.2017 in response to request to petitioner regarding supply of documents.
9.2 Defendant no. 3 examined herself as RW3. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW3/A. She relied upon the documents i.e Ex. DW3/1 (collectively) Records related to nomination form and other documents, Ex. DW3/2 Copy of list (FormCXV), Ex. DW3/3 & Ex. DW3/4 records relating to reply dated 08.03.2017 and the certificate dated 09.03.2017, Ex. DW3/5 Record related to hearing and decision taken by defendant no. 1 on the issue of the objections raised by the Order Page..... 15/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17 plaintiff against the deponent, Ex. DW3/6 records related to the proceedings dated 11.03.2017, Ex. DW3/7 (collectively) Records related to the letter and agreement both dated 17.07.2000, Ex. DW3/8 The record related to intimation regarding the intention of the deponent to contest the elections, Ex. DW3/9 (collectively) Record related school showing the salary slip of the deponent for the month of March 2017 with the special responsibilities, Ex. DW3/10 Record related to the certificate dated 28.04.2017, Ex. DW3/11 Record related to the certificate dated 28.04.2017 given by defendant no. 2, Ex. DW3/12 (collectively) Gazette Notification dated 20.12.2006 annexed with written statement, Ex. DW3/13 receipt no. 2556 dated 05.04.2017 annexed with written statement 9.3 Defendants examined Sh. Jasvinder Singh as RW3/W1. He is summoned witness from Guru Harkishan Public School, Nanak Paio, Delhi. He brought the copies of memorandum dated 17.07.2000 issued by GHPS, Nanak Paio and the letter dated 13.07.2000 issued by DSGMC. Original copy of Authorization letter dated 21.11.2019 bearing reference No. GHPS/NP/19/23066 with photocopies of communication dated 17.07.2000 & 13.07.2000. All the documents exhibited as Ex. RW 3/W1/A (collectively) Order Page..... 16/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17 9.4 Defendant no. 3 examined Sh. Gurmeet Singh as RW3/W2. He is summoned witness. He brought the original summoned records. The authorization letter exhibited as Ex. RW3/W2/A. 9.5 Defendant no. 3 examined Sh. Dharminder Singh as RW3/W3. He is also a summoned witness. He brought the record i.e communication dated 28.04.2017 bearing reference no. 5136/1113 Ex. RW3/W3/A (OSR), Ex. RW3/W3/B (collectively) (OSR) Office order dated 11.08.2014 and letter dated 14.03.2015, Ex. RW3/W3/C Copy of Authorization letter dated 21.11.2019 and Ex. RW3/W3/D (collectively) Copy of letter dated 30.04.2015 and the report dated 25.04.2015. 9.6 Defendants examined Sh. Avtar Singh Hit as RW3/W4. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW3/W4/A. 9.7 Defendant no. 4 examined himself as RW4. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW4/A. 9.8 All the DWs / RWs except RW3/W1, were duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
9.9 Vide statements dated 22.11.2019, defendants no. 2, 3 & 4 closed D.E. Order Page..... 17/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17
10. Vide separate statement dated 26.09.2020, Sh. Kulwinder Singh Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff admitted the document Ex. DW3/AD4 filed by defendant no. 3.
10.1 Vide separate statement dated 26.09.2020, defendant no. 3 admitted the documents i.e Ex. DW3/AD1, Ex. DW3/AD2 & Ex. DW3/AD3 which were allowed to be filed by the plaintiff. FINAL ARGUMENTS: PLAINTIFF'S ARGUMENTS:
11. It was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the cooption of defendant no. 3 & 4 has bee challenged. The grounds for challenging the cooption of defendant no. 3 are: firstly, she is not an "Amritdhari Sikh". Secondly, she gets her eyebrows plucked. Thirdly, she colours/dyes hair and fourthly, she is a paid employee of Gurudwara. It was submitted that with regard to plucking of eyebrows and colouring of hair there is only oral evidence. The plaintiff was not cross examined on these points. As such these allegations shall be deemed to have been admitted.
11.1 Defendant no. 3 is a teacher in Guru Harkishan Public School. As such she is a paid employee of the Gurudwara because all the schools by the name of Guru Harkishan Public School are under the direct administrative control of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee. Order Page..... 18/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17 Reliance was placed on the order dated16.02.2010 of Central Information Commission whereby it was held that Guru Harkishan Public School is a part of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee. If the appointment of a teacher is made under Delhi Education Act & Rules, the said teacher will be an employee of the school. However, if the appointment is made by the Gurudwara she will be a paid employee of Gurudwara. As per letter Ex. RW3/W1/A (Collectively) the appointment of defendant no. 3 as a teacher in Guru Harkishan Public School was approved by the President and General Secretary of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee. RW3 also admitted this point. The mode of appointment of a teacher will decide whether she is the employee of the Gurudwara or she is the employee of the school. With regard to the Amritdhari Status of defendant no. 3 it was submitted that defendant no. 3 / DW3 stated that she partook Amrit in the year 197172 at the age of 5 years. However, she did not disclose the name of the Gurudwara or the State where the said Gurudwara is situated, where defendant no. 3 partook Amrit. In response to questions no. 17 to 23, defendant no. 3 voluntarily stated that she went with her father for partaking Amrit. She also recalled the dress which she was wearing on that day however she could not recall the Gurudwara where the Amrit Sanchar ceremony was conducted. Father of defendant no. 3 expired in Order Page..... 19/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17 the year 2002. As such he could not be examined. Defendant no. 3 again partook Amrit at Gurudwara Bangla Saheb on 23.08.2020. This would give rise to the presumption that prior to 23.08.2020 defendant no. 3 was not an "Amritdhari Sikh". In the register regarding the Amrit ceremony dated 23.08.2020 it is mentioned that defendant no. 3 took one new Kachera (undergarments), this implies that on 23.08.2020 before Amrit taking ceremony she was not wearing undergarments. It was argued that an "Amritdhari Sikh" always carries the five kakaars including the Kachera. After the death even the cremation of an "Amritdhari Sikh" is done with all five Kakaars. It was submitted that in his cross examination dated 19.10.2019 DW1 in response to question no. 27 could not specifically tell whether there was any circular or notification justifying the filing of affidavit by candidates regarding their "Amritdhari" status. 11.2 With regard to defendant no. 4 it was submitted that his cooption is challenged on two grounds firstly, he colours/ dyes his beard. Secondly, he is not an "Amritdhari Sikh". It was admitted that there is no specific evidence regarding the colouring of beard of defendant no. 4. It was also admitted that defendant no. 4 filed affidavit / certificate from the Gurudwara where he partook Amrit. As such this ground was also dropped.
Order Page..... 20/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17 11.3 It was argued that there is no provision for any candidate to file any affidavit regarding his / her "Amritdhari" status. If the Amritdhari status of any candidate is challenged, the said candidate has to furnish proof regarding Amritdhari status. The documents filed by the plaintiff have not been denied.
11.4 It was submitted that as per Sikh Rehat Maryada Section6 ChapterXIII part (d), a person who is of very young age and has not attained a plausible degree of discretion cannot become an "Amritdhari Sikh". The rituals and daily routine of an Amridhari Sikh is quite strict which a child of young age cannot follow.
11.5 Written submissions filed by the plaintiff perused. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS NO. 1 & 5
12. It was submitted on behalf of defendant no. 1 that there can be no absolute proof regarding Amritdhari status of a Sikh. There is no provision for asking regarding the proof of Amritdhari status of a Sikh candidate. It is only by way of abundant caution that affidavit is taken from the candidates regarding their Amritdhari status. Guru Harikishan Public School is not run by the Gurudwara. As such defendant no. 3 is not an employee of Gurudwara. The said schools are run under Delhi Education Act & Rules.
Order Page..... 21/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17 ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS NO. 2 TO 4
13. It was submitted on behalf of defendant no. 2 to 4 that the opinion sent by Shri Akal Takht Saheb, Amritsar, Punjab, shall be considered. The other opinion given by Patna Saheb Gurudwara shall also be considered. In the opinion given by Shri Akal Takht Saheb it is stated that such religious matters can only be settled by Shri Akal Takht Saheb. The young age of person taking Amrit cannot give rise to the presumption that she did not take Amrit. On 23.08.2020 the Panj Pyare Saheb who conducted the Amrit taking ceremony of defendant no. 3 were satisfied in this regard. Defendant no. 3 wanted a new "Kachera" as such she got a new one. This cannot give rise to the presumption that she was not wearing a "Kachera" before the Amrit taking ceremony on 23.08.2020. As per Section 2 (n) of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Act 1971, selfdeclaration regarding the status of Sikh is sufficient for a person to be considered a Sikh. If selfdeclaration is sufficient for being declared a sikh, then self declaration shall be sufficient for Amritdhari status as well. There is no rule which requires furnishing of any proof regarding Amritdhari status for any candidate being coopted. At the time of second Amrit ceremony, the Panj Pyare Saheb were told about the background of defendant no. 3. Order Page..... 22/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17 They were satisfied. That is why they conducted the second Amrit taking ceremony.
13.1 Defendant no. 3 is a teacher in Guru Harkishan Public School. She draws her salary from the said school. The appointment letter of defendant no. 3 is Ex. DW3/7 (collectively). The same is signed by the Principal of Guru Harkishan Public School. The letter Ex. RW3/W1/A (Collectively) is only an approval letter. Ex. DW3/10 is filed by the Principal of Guru Harkishan Public School whereby it is specifically stated that defendant no. 3 is under the control and supervision of the school and not under the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee. ISSUEWISE FINDINGS:
14. ISSUES NO. 1: Whether the nomination forms dated 06.03.2017 could have been legally entertained by defendant no. 1 & 5 for the admitted failures of defendant no. 3 & 4 to produce the certificates on 06.03.2017 for showing their having partaken of the Amrit ? OPD-3 & 4 & ISSUES NO. 2: Whether he candidatures of defendant no. 3 & 4 were liable to be declared as disqualified as on 06.03.2017 and 08.03.2017 due to their failures to produce the records, with their Nomination Forms for showing their having partaken Amrit ? OPD-3 & 4 Order Page..... 23/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17 14.1 Issue no. 1 & 2 are being taken up together for disposal. Both these issues pertain to similar points. The onus to prove these issues is upon defendant no. 3 & 4.
14.2 With regard to issue no. 3 & 4 it is pertinent to observe that both these issues relate to the Amritdhari status of defendant no. 3 & 4. At this point it is pertinent to observe that the plaintiff has dropped his claim regarding the Amritdhari status of defendant no. 4. However, in the replication to the written statement of defendant no. 3 & 4, the plaintiff has raised certain issues regarding the certificate of Amritdhari status which was filed by defendant no. 4. Still the bottom line is that the plaintiff has dropped his case / arguments against defendant no. 4. Issue regarding Amritdhari status of the defendants no. 3 & 4 will be decided at the appropriate stage.
14.3 The nomination papers of candidates for being coopted are filed under Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee (cooption of members) Rules 1974 (hereinafter referred as "the rules"). None of the parties has advanced any arguments regarding these rules. None of the parties have assisted the court in understanding these rules. I have tried to acquaint myself with these rules. The nomination papers of the candidates for cooption are filed in terms of Rule 12 of the said rules. Rule 12 (2) provides for form CXIII for nomination papers. There is no Order Page..... 24/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17 specific provision for filing of any affidavit regarding Amritdhari status of the candidate concerned. On the one hand the plaintiff has alleged that the nomination forms of defendant no. 3 & 4 should have been rejected for failure to produce certificates regarding their Amritdhari status. On the other hand issue no. 3 is framed; therein the question is whether the additional documents i.e certificate etc could have been filed for showing the Amritdhari status of defendant no. 3 & 4. Defendant no. 1 has submitted that there is no provision to ask for certificate of Amritdhari status from the candidate. Still by way of abundant caution such affidavits are taken.
14.4 At the cost of repetition it is pertinent to mention that the onus to prove issue no. 1 & 2 is upon defendant no. 3 & 4 however the plaintiffs should have primafacie shown any particular rule which required the filing of the certificate to show the Amritdhari status of the candidates. 14.5 As already observed above no specific provision requiring the candidates to file certificate regarding their Amritdhari status have been brought to the knowledge of the court.
14.6 In view of the above, issues no. 1 & 2 are decided in favour of defendant no. 3 & 4 and against the plaintiff.
15. ISSUE NO. 3: Whether the acts of defendant no. 1 & 5 in entertaining additional documents (certificate / records) on 09.03.2017 submitted by defendant no. 3 & 4 for Order Page..... 25/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17 supporting their eligibility, are contrary to the provisions of Rule 12 (8) of DSGMC (Co-option of members), Rules 1974 ? OPD- 1 & 5 The onus to prove this issue is upon defendant no. 1 & 5. 15.1 Rule 12 (8) of the said rules provides that where any objection is raised either by the Director or by any other person regarding the candidature of any candidate, the candidate concerned may be allowed to rebut but not later than the day following the date fixed for scrutiny. In the present matter the date of scrutiny was 08.03.2017 as mentioned in para no. 11 of the plaint. As such the opportunity for defendant no. 3 & 4 to rebut the objections raised by the plaintiff would be available on the next day i.e 09.03.2017. The opportunity given to defendant no. 3 & 4 for rebutting the objections raised by the plaintiffs is within rules. There is no specific allegation against defendant no. 3 & 4 that they produced the rebuttal material beyond the prescribed period. The veracity of the rebuttal material produced by defendant no. 3 & 4 will be considered in the next following issues.
15.2 Accordingly, in view of the above issue no. 3 is decided in favour of defendant no. 1 & 5 and against the plaintiff.
16. ISSUES NO. 4: Whether the orders dated 09.03.2017 is liable to be set aside as being violative of Sections 10 (1) (d) and 10 (1) (I) of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1971 ? OPP, Order Page..... 26/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17 ISSUES NO. 5: Whether the notification dated 11.03.2017 declaring the co-option of defendant no. 3 & 4 is liable to be set- aside ? If yes, it's effect. OPP & ISSUES NO. 6: Whether the orders dated 09.03.2017 is liable to be set aside as being violative of Sections 10 (1) (d) and 10 (1) (I) of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1971 ? OPP 16.1 To begin with as already observed above the plaintiff has dropped his case against defendant no. 4. The plaintiff has challenged the co option of defendant no. 3 in terms of Section 10 (1) (i), (h) & (d). The three grounds for challenging the cooption of defendant no. 3 can be summarized as follows:
(a) Defendant no. 3 is a paid servant of Gurudwara hence disqualified for being coopted as member of defendant no. 2 in terms of Section 10 (1) (i) of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1971.
(b) Defendant no. 3 dyes her hair and trims her eyebrows in violation of Section 10 (1) (h) of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1971 due to which she becomes a "Patit" under Section 2 (j) of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1971.
(c) Defendant no. 3 is not an Amritdhari Sikh as required under Section 10 (1) (d) of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1971, for being coopted as a member of defendant no. 2.
All these grounds shall be scrutinized individually. Order Page..... 27/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17
(a) Defendant no. 3 is a paid servant of Gurudwara hence disqualified for being coopted as member of defendant no. 2 in terms of Section 10 (1) (i) of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1971.
(a)(i) With regard to this ground the plaintiff claims that admittedly defendant no. 3 is an employee of Guru Harkishan Public School which is under the direct control and supervision of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee. In this regard the plaintiff has relied upon order dated 16.02.2010 of Central Information Commission in appeal bearing no. CIC/SG/A/2009/003014 in the matter of "Kulwant Singh Baath Vs. Guru Harkishan Public School" West Jyoti Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi - 110094. In this order it was held that Guru Harkishan Public School is under the control and supervision of Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee. In my considered view this is not a judicial binding precedent. Further, the order of Central Information Commission is with regard to RTI Act. The plaintiff has not produced any material to show that the order of information commission under the RTI Act is binding upon any court.
(a)(ii) In the said order the Memorandum of Association and Rules and regulations of Governing body of Guru Harkishan Public School were considered. As per Section 4 (a) all affairs of the society will be carried on by the governing body to be nominated by Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee. The total number of members will be 19 out of which at least Order Page..... 28/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17 09 will be the members of Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee. In the plaint it is stated that in the executive board also 09 members shall be the members of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee. Rule 11 provides that vacancies shall also be filled by Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee. Rule 24 provides that Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee shall have preferentialsay in financial matters as well. At present 11 members of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee are in the Society. The entire recruitment of staff in Guru Harkishan Public Schools is made by Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee through Education Cell. It is also a matter of record that the President and General Secretary of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee filed affidavit dated 21.05.2015 before the Hon'ble High Court wherein they undertook to clear the dues of the schools of Guru Harkishan Public School Society.
(a)(iii) It was also argued that as per letter Ex. RW3/W1/A (collectively) the appointment of defendant no. 3 as a teacher in Guru Harkishan Public School was "approved" by the President and General Secretary of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee. It was argued on behalf of defendant no. 3 that the actual appointment letter Ex. DW3/7 (collectively) was signed by Principal of Guru Harkishan Order Page..... 29/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17 Public School. The letter Ex. RW3/W1/A (collectively) is only an approval letter.
(a)(iv) Section 8 of Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulation of Governing body of Guru Harkishan Public School provides that the board shall be nominated by Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee Delhi. The Principal of the school shall be an exofficio member of the board. The letter Ex. RW3/W1/A (collectively) is addressed to the Princi pal of Guru Harkishan Public School. The same is signed by the President and General Secretary of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee. Therein it is stated that the signatory i.e the President and General Secretary of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee "approved" the appointment of defendant no. 3 as a primary teacher of the school with immediate effect. Defendant no. 3 has tried to show that this approval and the actual appointment of defendant no. 3 as a primary teacher in Guru Harkishan Public School are two distinct affairs. It was also argued that the teachers in Guru Harkishan Public Schools are appointed under Delhi Education Act. The defendants have not produced any material to show that the vacancy filled by the appointment of defendant no. 3 was advertised under Delhi Education Act & Rules. On internal page no. 10 of the written statement of defendant no. 3 & 4 it is admitted that the recruitment, post fixation and departmental Order Page..... 30/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17 proceedings for the employees of schools are done at the instance of defendant no. 2 however the proceedings are done under Delhi Education Act and Rules. It is also admitted that in some instances the departmental proceedings have been conducted by officers of defendant no. 2 as inquiry officers. In the same breath it is argued that this does not make the em ployees of the school as the employees of the Gurudwara Committee. In my considered opinion the so called approval letter Ex. RW3/W1/A is actually an appointment letter. After the issuance of the said letter no other major / material step was required to be taken for the appointment of defendant no. 3 as primary teacher in Guru Harkishan Public School. The appointment letter Ex. DW3/7 (collectively) is a mere formality. The appointment letter was apparently issued under the direction of the then President and General Secretary of Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee. As per rules the committee has preferentialsay in financial matters as well. It is a matter of record that affidavit dated 21.05.2015 was filed by the President and General Secretary of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee before Hon'ble High Court wherein they undertook to clear the dues of the schools. It shows that the committee has complete financial control over the schools. The committee is controlling the policy making of the schools. The officers of defendant no. 2 are admittedly conducting departmental inquiries of the Order Page..... 31/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17 teachers and staff of the schools. The departmental inquiries of the employees can only be conducted by the employer. This vital function cannot be outsourced or delegated.
(a)(v) In view of the above it is held that defendant no. 3 is under the di rect control and supervision of Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee.
(b) Defendant no. 3 dyes her hair and trims her eyebrows in violation of Section 10 (1) (h) of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1971 due to which she becomes a "Patit" under Section 2 (j) of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1971.
(b)(i) With regard to this point the plaintiff has admitted that there is no direct evidence on this point. It was submitted that the defendants have not cross examined plaintiff witness on this point. However, in the absence of any direct evidence or any direct or clearcut admission on this point it cannot be held that the plaintiff has proved this point. Accordingly, the plaintiff has failed to prove that defendant no. 3 dyes her hair and/or trims her eyebrows in violation of Section 10 (1)(h) of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1971.
(c) Defendant no. 3 is not an Amritdhari Sikh as required under Section 10 (1) (d) of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1971, for being coopted as a member of defendant no. 2.
Order Page..... 32/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17
(c)(i) The plaintiff initially challenged the cooption of defendant no. 3 & 4 with regard to their Amritdhari status. However subsequently this ground was dropped against defendant no. 4. Though in the replication to the written statement of defendant no. 3 & 4 the plaintiff has raised certain issues about the certificate of Amritdhari status which was filed by defendant no. 4. But during the course of arguments Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff clearly stated that this ground is dropped against defendant no. 4. As such only the case of defendant no. 3 shall be scrutinized with regard to this point.
(c)(ii) The defendants filed an opinion given by the Gurudwara Patna Sahib. Further vide order dated 03.10.2020 request was sent to Shri Akal Takht Sahib, Amritsar, Punjab for giving opinion on the points mentioned in the order as follows:
1. Whether an Amritdhari Sikh can present himself / herself for seeking rebaptise before the Panj Pyare (five beloved ones) without commission of any of the four transgressions as per the provisions enshrined in Sikh Rehat Maryada ?
2. Whether an Amritdhari Sikh can present himself / herself for seeking rebaptise before the Panj Pyare (five beloved ones) without commission of any of the four transgressions only for Order Page..... 33/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17 the purpose of creating a document with regard to proof of partaken of Amri ? (verbatim) I have perused both the opinions. The same are inconclusive and do not provide any clear cut answer to the court queries.
(c)(iii) It was argued on behalf of defendant no. 3 that no certificate is required for claiming Amritdhari status by any Sikh. Selfdeclaration is sufficient. The plaintiff also has not cited any rule / law or any practice which makes it mandatory for any Sikh to produce documentary evidence to claim Amritdhari status. However, if the Amritdhari status of any Sikh is challenged before a court the same has to be decided by the court.
(c)(iv) On internal page no. 4 of the written statement of defendant no. 3 & 4 it is stated that in the communication dated 08.03.2017 (Ex. DW3/3) answering defendant no. 3 claimed to have attained the status of Amritdhari Sikh at the age of five years. I have perused Ex. DW3/3. On the second page second last para of Ex. DW3/3, it is stated that in the year 197172 at the age of five years defendant no. 3 partook Amrit and since then she is following Sikh Rehat Maryada accordingly. It was argued on behalf of the defendants that no specific age for partaking Amrit is prescribed. It was also argued that the young age of a person for partaking Amrit cannot give rise to the presumption that he or she did not partake Amrit.
Order Page..... 34/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17
(c)(v) In this regard Section 6 ChapterXIII Article XXIV Point (d) is relevant. It provides that any man and woman of any country, religion or cast who embraces Sikhism is entitled to ambrosial baptism. However, a rider is attached. It provides "the person to be baptized should not be of very young age; he or she should have attained a plausible degree of discretion". In the Sikh Rehat Maryada the term "very young age" and "attained a plausible degree of discretion" are not defined. In view of this these terms have to be understood in the language and as per the standards of a reasonably prudent person. It is not disputed by any of the parties that the religious routine of an Amritdhari Sikh has to be followed strictly.
(c)(vi) In pointf of Section 6 ChapterXIII Article XXIV of Sikh Rehat Maryada it is provided that one of the five beloved ones (Panj Pyare) should explain the principles of the Sikh Religion to the person baptized (who partakes Amrit), this includes meditating on one Supreme Creator. Under ordinary circumstances it is difficult to believe that a five year old child will be able to grasp these concepts. This makes it highly improbable that defendant no. 3 partook Amrit at the age of five years in the year 197172 as claimed by her.
(c)(vii) It is not disputed that on 23.08.2020 defendant no. 3 partook Amrit at Gurudwara Bangla Sahib, Delhi. This however would not relate Order Page..... 35/36 Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17 back that to the date of filing of nomination papers of defendant no. 3. As such in view of the above findings it is held that on the date of filing of nomination papers defendant no. 3 was not an Amritdhari Sikh.
(c)(viii) Accordingly, issues no. 4, 5 & 6 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no. 3.
Relief:
17. The cooption of defendant no. 3 Ms. Ranjeet Kaur as member of defendant no. 2 vide notification F.1/178/DGE/2017/1189 dated 11.03.2017 is declared null and void.
17.1 The plaintiff is declared as duly coopted member of defendant no. 2.
18. Suit of the plaintiff is decreed in the above terms.
19. No order as to cost.
20. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RAJINDER SINGH)
COURT ON 25.01.2021 ADJ02/CENTRAL/THC/DELHI
Order Page..... 36/36
Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Directorate of Gurudwara Election & Ors. CS. DJ. No. 1287/17