Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pawan Kumar And Ors vs Sgpc, Amritsar And Ors on 11 December, 2014
Author: K.Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.4203 of 1996
Date of decision:11.12.2014
Shri Pawan Kumar, Hony. Secretary, Managing Committee, Khalsa
College, Garhdiwala, District Hoshiarpur, and another.
... Petitioners
versus
Siromani Gurdwara Prabhandak Committee, through its Secretary,
Head office, Golden Temple, Amritsar, and others.
.... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. R.P.S. Bara, Advocate,
for respondent No.1-SGPC.
Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate,
for respondents 6 to 21.
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No.
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No.
----
K.Kannan, J.
1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the act of some of the members of the Managing Committee of the Khasla College at Garhdiwala, District Hoshiarpur in handing over its administration to the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandhak Committee (for short, SANJEEV KUMAR 2014.12.18 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.4203 of 1996 -2- SGPC), as declared through its letter dated 14.03.1996 and for a direction against the College from taking over the management and functioning of the College and further direction against the SGPC from taking over the management and for running the College.
2. The case was instituted in the year 1996 and it was admitted at the time when the arguments were taken up, that the SGPC has been actually running the institution all these years and there has been no complaint against its administration except from the petitioners themselves. The first petitioner would contend that he was an Honorary Secretary to the erstwhile Managing Committee of the Khalsa College at the relevant time when the writ petition was filed. The second petitioner claims to be the President of the Committee. The petitioners have made reference to an earlier writ petition filed by the second respondent describing himself as Honorary Secretary of the Managing Committee of the Khalsa College against the Panjab University in CWP No.4108 of 1994 when the University had recognized a rival group of persons constituting themselves as office bearers and excluding the second petitioner from the post as Honorary Secretary. The case was disposed of by a Division Bench on 02.02.1996 holding that the issue of whether the Managing Committee which had been elected in the year 1991 of which the second petitioner claimed to the Secretary was validly dissolved and whether fresh elections which SANJEEV KUMAR 2014.12.18 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.4203 of 1996 -3- were held in 1992 under which the rival body of members were acting as members of the Managing Committee could not be decided in a writ petition and that it should be decided only through a regular civil suit. It further held that the resolution of the University keeping in abeyance the decision of the Vice Chancellor recognizing the second petitioner as the office bearer of the Managing Committee till the decision was rendered by a civil court could not be faulted. Admittedly, the petitioner did not choose to bring such a suit to decide on the validity of the composition of the Managing Committee and had brought a challenge through a writ petition against the SGPC managing its affairs on the ground that the SGPC was a religious body entrusted with administration of certain gurdwaras and it had nothing to do with the running of educational institutions. The other plank on which the petitioners would oppose the handing over of the management to the SGPC was that the Khalsa College was owned and administered by a registered society and the society could transfer its assets only to another society under its bye-laws and in the manner recognized under the Societies Registration Act and not in favour of a religious body constituted under specific enactment for a specific purpose of religious advancement.
3. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of SGPC and the counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 6 to 21, who are SANJEEV KUMAR 2014.12.18 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.4203 of 1996 -4- the persons said to be responsible for handing over the management, have entered contest on the petitioners' plea that they are members of the Managing Committee and that they have any locus standi to question the decision of the existing Managing Committee which handed over the management to SGPC. They would point out to the fact that the petitioners' status as members of the Managing Committee was not an admitted one and if the Division Bench of this court had already approved of the decision of the Panjab University and had only allowed for an adjudication through a civil court, the petitioners ought not to have a cause for a complaint that the SGPC had no power to administer the college. They would only point out that even as per the petitioners' contention, the term of office was only upto 1996 and the petitioners have no status to continue as such office bearers of the Managing Committee and maintain the writ petition.
4. It is not possible for me to decide on the validity of the election to the office bearers in the year 1991 and examine the petitioners' contention of whether the act of handing over of the administration of the college was justified at the instance of persons who claimed similar status as the petitioners themselves. Indeed, it is inexigent to enter into the very aspect which the Division Bench had already dealt with in CWP No.4108 of 1994. The petitioners could not have resorted to an action in the alleged capacity as office SANJEEV KUMAR 2014.12.18 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.4203 of 1996 -5- bearers of the Managing Committee without establishing the status in the civil court. Though the petitioners' counsel made an issue about how the alleged act of removal of the second petitioner could not have been done through any resolution of the society passed without notice to him and the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents was prepared to produce the documents to show the alleged notices said to have been issued, I declined to make reference to the documents only on the ground that it will be reopening an issue of what the Division Bench had concluded and directing the parties to seek for civil court adjudication.
5. Even while holding that the petitioners cannot claim their status as Managing Committee members, since the counsel took up the issue that the Khalsa College had been established on the property that originally belonged to the family of the second petitioner and as a person belonging to the family which had built the constructions, he had the locus standi to contest the SGPC's role, I was prepared to examine his objections as persons who are interested in the administration and further see whether there was anything legally impermissible for the SGPC to run the administration of the college.
6. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of SGPC points out to me that the SGPC is run through a Board which is SANJEEV KUMAR 2014.12.18 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.4203 of 1996 -6- constituted under Section 42 of the Act. There is also a Committee whose functions are expressly delineated under Chapter VIII of the Act that sets out a procedure for elections of members, their qualifications etc. Section 125 found in Chapter X states that the duty of the Board shall be to ensure that every Committee constituted under the Act deals with the property and income of the gurdwaras or gurdwaras managed by it are done properly. The Board has also given the powers under Section 127 to hold and administer trusts which includes activities of educational or industrial nature. Section 127 reads thus:-
"127. Board may hold and administer trust.- It shall be competent for the Board to hold and administer trust funds and administer for purposes of a religious, charitable educational or industrial nature whether such trusts. funds are derived from allotments duly made by a committee out of the surplus funds or income of a gurdwara under its management or from donations, or contributions or endowments made direct to the Board for such purposes."
7. The learned senior counsel would therefore state that although the original object as envisaged in the year 1925 at the time when the Act was made was to entrust with the statutory bodies constituted under the Act only the duty to administer Sikh SANJEEV KUMAR 2014.12.18 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.4203 of 1996 -7- Gurdwaras, the amendment which was introduced in the Punjab Law 11 of 1944 empowered the Board to hold trusts of educational nature as well. Since then the Board has under its control several educational institutions and there is nothing inherently wrong about the administration of the college. Indeed, the SGPC has also framed rules for administration of schools and colleges.
8. The learned senior counsel for SGPC would also argue that it has taken no benefit. The management came at a time when the existing administration could not even pay the necessary endowment fee required under the University Regulations. The SGPC has made a huge contribution of `1 lakh as early as in the year 1966. The second petitioner himself was convicted in a criminal offence and imprisoned for certain offences under IPC and he having been removed by the duly constituted members of the Committee had decided through a resolution to hand over the administration to the first respondent and the name which it has earned has gained from the strength to strength and there is simply no occasion to withdraw the administration from SGPC.
9. The learned senior counsel would also state that if there was no objection from any members of the public it serves no public interest for a court to make an interference. The issue of transfer of property of a society arises only in a situation where the properties are transferred from the society to any other institution. No such SANJEEV KUMAR 2014.12.18 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.4203 of 1996 -8- situation has arisen where the property, namely, the assets of the college are transferred or divested from the society to vest it with the SGPC. The SGPC claims no right over the property except to administer the college. The property is still owned by the college and the society which owns the college. There is nothing inherently impermissible under the Societies Registration Act that allows a statutory body to run the educational institutions, more particularly in the situation where the SGPC Act expressly permits the Board to maintain even educational institutions. There is not even a scope for invoking the clauses of the bye-laws and the provisions of the Act which make possible a transfer of assets in the event of dissolution of a society, since the society has not ceased to exist. The learned senior counsel would submit that if there is ever a duly constituted suit in the civil court and an adjudication is rendered declaring as lawful the constituted members of the society and if the members of such society reclaim the management and control of the college, the SGPC would then be obligated to consider the issue of handing over. As of now, there is no such situation warranting any direction that SGPC must hand over the administration of the College in favour of some other society which is unnamed in the petition.
10. I see the weight of arguments placed at the instance of the 1st respondent and hold that the objections regarding the body constituted under the SGPC Act to administer the educational SANJEEV KUMAR 2014.12.18 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.4203 of 1996 -9- institution ought to fall to ground in the light of Section 127 of the SGPC Act. If the society which functions the college has not ceased to exist and an adjudication regarding the persons who are entitled to manage its affairs has not taken effect, there is no compulsion for SGPC to deliver back the administration to the society so long as there is no one amongst the petitioners who can show himself to be entitled to reclaim the management.
11. There is no relief possible as claimed in the writ petition. It ought to fail and the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 11.12.2014 sanjeev SANJEEV KUMAR 2014.12.18 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document