Patna High Court
The Prabandhak Committee Through Its ... vs Sardar Amarjeet Singh And Ors on 1 October, 2020
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17692 of 2017
In
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1984 of 2017
======================================================
The Prabandhak Committee through its Member Shri Charanjit Singh Son of
late Desha Singh Resident of4/6, Anand Puri, West Boring Canal Road, P.S.-
S.K. Puri, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Sardar Amarjeet Singh, Son of late Balwant Singh, Resident of Mohalla-
Harimandirji Gali, Patna City, P.S. Chowk, District- Patna.
2. S. Avtar Singh Makkar, President, Sri Harimandir Ji Pravbandhak
Committee, Patna Saheb, Patna City, Patna
3. S. Shailendra Singh, Senior Vice President, Sri Harimandir Ji Prabandhak
Committee, Patna Saheb, Patna City, Patna
4. Bibi Kawaljeet Kaur, Junior Vice President , Sri Harimandir Ji Prabandhak
Committee, Patna Saheb, Patna City, Patna
5. S. Sarjinder Singh, General Secretary, Sri Harimandir Ji Prabandhak
Committee, Patna Saheb, Patna City, Patna
6. S. Mahendra Singh Chhabra, Secretary, Sri Sri Harimandir Ji Prabandhak
Committee, Patna Saheb, Patna City, Patna
7. Bihar State Election Authority, through its Secretary.
8. Dr. Gurmeet Singh, Member of Prabandhak Committee, Patna Saheb, Patna
City, Patna.
9. R.S. Jeet, Member of Prabandhak Committee, Patna Saheb, Patna City,
Patna.
10. Harvendar Singh Sarma, Member of Prabandhak Committee, Patna Saheb,
Patna City, Patna.
11. Bhajan Singh Walia, Member of Prabandhak Committee, Patna Saheb, Patna
City, Patna.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17692 of 2017 dt.01-10-2020
2/29
12. Prithpal Singh, Member of Prabandhak Committee, Patna Saheb, Patna City,
Patna.
13. Dr. R.S. Gandhi, Member of Prabandhak Committee, Patna Saheb, Patna
City, Patna.
14. Gurinder Pal Singh, Member of Prabandhak Committee, Patna Saheb, Patna
City, Patna.
15. Maharaja Singh Sonu, Member of Prabandhak Committee, Patna Saheb,
Patna City, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. P. K. Shahi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vikash Kumar, Adv.
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Kumar Alok, Adv.
For Res. Nos. 2 to 6 : Mr. Y. V. Giri, Sr. Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashish Giri, Adv.
For respondent no.7 : Mr. Mukesh Thakur,Adv.
For Res. Nos.10, 11, 13 and 15 : Mr. S. S. Sundram, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-10-2020
Heard Mr. P. K. Shahi, learned Sr. Counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Sr. Counsel for the
respondent no.1, Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned Sr. Counsel for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17692 of 2017 dt.01-10-2020
3/29
respondent nos. 2 to 6, Mr. Mukesh Thakur, learned counsel for
the respondent no.7 and Mr. S. S. Sundaram, learned counsel for
the respondent nos. 10, 11, 13 and 15.
This writ application under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India has been filed seeking issuance of
appropriate writ/order/direction by quashing an order dated
07.11.2017passed by the learned District Judge Patna in Miscellaneous Case No. 173 of 2017, whereby and whereunder he has allowed an application filed on behalf of respondent No.1 and has directed to maintain status quo ante in respect of the office bearers of the Parbandhak Committee, (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) of the Takht Sri Harimandir Ji Patna Sahib, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the shrine).
It may be noted at the outset that the shrine is of great historical and religious significance specially for the Sikh community and is said to be the birthplace of Sri Guru Govind Singh Ji Maharaj which is centuries-old, affairs of which is managed and maintained by the Committee and the office bearers of the Committee in accordance with its Constitution and By-Laws (hereinafter referred to as the By-Laws). Be it also noted that affairs of attached or subordinate Gurudwaras and Dharmshalas, as per the list given in Chapter II of the By-Laws, Patna High Court CWJC No.17692 of 2017 dt.01-10-2020 4/29 are also managed and maintained by the Committee.
Article 77 of the By-Laws prescribes that any person having interest in the Gurudwara or any other Gurdwara controlled by the Committee may make an application to the District Judge, Patna against the Committee or any of its office bearers or against any employee of the Committee with respect to any alleged malfeasance or misfeasance, breach of trust, neglect of duty or abuse of powers conferred by the By-Laws. It further prescribes that the said provision will however not be a bar for a person from filing a regular suit or a regular complaint in a competent court of law against any person connected with the Gurdwara. Article 78 of the By-Laws states that if any dispute relating to interpretation of any Article arises, the Committee shall refer the matter to the learned District Judge, Patna and his opinion shall be final. The order of learned District Judge, Patna which is impugned in the present writ application has been passed on an application made by respondent No. 1 herein.
At this stage it will be beneficial to refer to certain salient features of the By-Laws which are relevant for dealing with the controversy which the present writ application involves, before referring to the background in which this Patna High Court CWJC No.17692 of 2017 dt.01-10-2020 5/29 application has been filed and other materials on which reliance has been placed by rival parties.
Article 3 of the By-Laws contains definition clause, sub- Article (a) of which defines 'Committee' as constituted and named under the provisions of chapter IV, namely, "Parbandhak Committee, Shri Takht Harimandirji, Patna Saheb". Article 9 (1) under chapter IV postulates that the Committee shall consist of 15 members, appointed, nominated, elected and co-opted, as provided and finally approved and declared by the District Judge, Patna. The said provision lays down the manner in which the members are to be nominated, elected, co-opted and appointed. It is considered apt to refer, at this stage, to an order passed by this Court on 07.12.2012 in CWJC No. 18827 of 2008 (Manohar Singh versus the State of Bihar and others). The said case, in the nature of public interest litigation, was filed seeking direction to the then Committee to constitute a new Committee as per the Constitution and the By-Laws as the term of the then Committee had expired. A Division Bench of this Court noticed practical difficulties that had arisen in implementation of the Constitution and the By-Laws relating to the shrine and had proceeded to explore solutions to overcome the difficulties, particularly in the matter of holding election of Patna High Court CWJC No.17692 of 2017 dt.01-10-2020 6/29 the Committee. It is evident from this Court's order passed in Manohar Singh (supra) that for ensuring timely Constitution of the Committee, it was deemed necessary by the State Government to issue a notification dated 25. 05. 2010 under Section 4 (1) of the Bihar State Election Authorities Act, 2008 read with Rule 3 of the Election Rules framed thereunder, authorizing the Bihar State Election Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) to initiate and conduct fresh elections for constituting a new Committee for the shrine. Certain doubts were raised before the Division Bench of this Court as to whether the authority will be competent to hold the election of the Committee as proposed, with the issuance of the notification dated 25. 05. 2010, which was earlier used to be conducted by the District Judge Patna. The court clarified that the District Judge Patna had become the authority for holding election as per Constitution and By-Laws, on account of settlement between the parties in a suit decided on 14. 12. 1954. As the situation had changed and the successive District Judges, due to some practical difficulties where finding difficulties in assuming their responsibility of holding election, this Court approved the proposal of the State government to entrust the duty of holding election to the State Election Authority. In no Patna High Court CWJC No.17692 of 2017 dt.01-10-2020 7/29 uncertain terms the Division Bench ruled that as a result of the notification dated 25. 5. 2010 the State Election Authority would simply replace the District Judge Patna, as an authority entitled for holding election in the manner prescribed in the Constitution and the By-Laws. The Division Bench clarified that any other role of the District Judge under the Constitution and the By-Laws such as nominating suitable members shall continue to be performed by the District Judge and only task of holding election would now be that of Election Commission (sic, authority). It is in the background of these facts and particularly the notification issued by the State government dated 25.05.2010, under section 4 (1) of the Bihar State Election Authorities Act, 2008 that election for the Committee is to be held by the Bihar State Election Authority.
The period of continuance of the Committee constituted under Article 9 (1) has been prescribed as five years from the date of its Constitution or until a new Committee has been constituted, whichever is later, as provided under Article 8 of the Constitution and By-Laws. There is no ambiguity in the language of Article 8 which permits a Committee constituted under Article 9 (1) to continue till a new Committee is constituted, even after expiry of five years of the term of the Patna High Court CWJC No.17692 of 2017 dt.01-10-2020 8/29 Committee as fixed under the said Article.
Article 30 of the Constitution and By-Laws mandates the Committee to elect office bearers namely:-
1. A President.
2. A Senior Vice President
3. A Junior Vice President
4. A General Secretary
5. A Secretary It is evident thus that one election has to be held for the purpose of Constitution of the Committee as contemplated under Article 9 (1). The Committee has, in turn, a duty to elect the office bearers under Article 30 of the Constitution and By-
Laws. The notification dated 25. 5. 2010 pertains to election of members who are to be elected, for the Constitution of the Committee, in respect of which there is no room for doubt. At this stage it would be beneficial to notice Article 31 of the Constitution and By-Laws which states that subsequent to Constitution of the office bearers of the Committee under the provisions of Article 30, the office bearers similar to one described in the said Article shall be elected by ballot every two and half years and the office bearers elected at the first meeting of the Committee shall hold office until new office bearers have Patna High Court CWJC No.17692 of 2017 dt.01-10-2020 9/29 been elected at the meeting of the Committee. On plain reading of Article 31 of the Constitution and the By-Laws it can be easily concluded that the life of the office bearers of the Committee is two and half years, whereafter fresh selection has to be held by the Committee for the office bearers. It is true that it allows the office bearers also to hold the office until new office bearers have been elected at the meeting of the Committee.
Having stated the provisions under the Constitution and the By-Laws and the fact of a notification of the State Government dated 25. 05. 2010 Under section 4 (1) read with the Rules framed thereunder, the basic facts which have given rise to the present controversy, in the light of rival pleadings are being taken note of. It may also be noted here that initially the application was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and was registered as C. Misc.No. 1984 of 2017 which was taken up by a coordinate bench of this Court on 21.11. 2017. The coordinate bench, while issuing notice to the respondents had stayed the impugned order passed by learned District Judge, Patna in Misc. Case No. 173 of 2017. A letters patent appeal was preferred challenging the order dated 21. 11. 2017 which gave rise to LPA number 1633 of 2017, mainly on Patna High Court CWJC No.17692 of 2017 dt.01-10-2020 10/29 the ground that an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India could not be maintained against the impugned order of the District Judge dated 7. 11. 2017 passed in exercise of his jurisdiction under Article 77 of the By-Laws. The challenge was sustained and accordingly a Division Bench of this Court set-aside the said order dated 21.11. 2017 passed in C.Misc. No. 1984 of 2017 holding that the power exercised by the District Judge under Article 77 of the By-Laws was nothing but an administrative power exercised by him in his capacity as a custodian of the Committee. The Division Bench observed that a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was not maintainable rather it should have been a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was in the light of a prayer made by the petitioner herein, who was respondent No.1 before the Division Bench that the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was permitted to be converted into an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said case was accordingly re-registered and has thus given rise to the present writ application.
It is the petitioner's claim that he is the ex-General Secretary and one of the 15 members of the Committee , elected in accordance with chapters III and IV of the Patna High Court CWJC No.17692 of 2017 dt.01-10-2020 11/29 Constitution and By-Laws of the Committee. The election for the Committee was held in April, 2012. It is his case that in accordance with Article 31 of the By-Laws, the Committee of 15 members have to elect the office bearers of the Committee. The election of the office bearers of the Committee was held in July 2012 and after the term of office bearers came to an end on completion of two and half years, again an election was held in February 2015, for a further period of two and half years. The term of the office bearers elected in February 2015 came to an end after completion of two and half years and therefore, fresh election for electing office bearers was required to be held. It has been stated that the tenure of Parbandhak Committee has expired after completion of five years and in accordance with the orders of this Court, last election for constitution of the Committee was held in April 2012 in accordance with the provisions under the State Election Authority Act. The process of holding fresh election of the Committee is underway and is likely to take some time. It has further been stated that when the tenure of the Committee of the office bearers came to an end, the 14 members from the Committee (1 out of 15 having passed away), unanimously decided to elect office bearers for which purpose a resolution was issued on 16.07.2017 to hold a meeting Patna High Court CWJC No.17692 of 2017 dt.01-10-2020 12/29 for electing the office bearers. The meeting was fixed on 3.9 . 2017 when by a unanimous resolution, five office bearers were elected with the petitioner as the General Secretary. Before election of the office bearers of the Committee was held, a petition was filed in the court of the learned District Judge Patna, registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 150 of 2017 by respondent No.1. In this proceeding he had prayed for a direction to the Parbandhak Committee to fix fresh election date for constitution of new Committee as the term of present Parbandhak Committee had expired in July 2017. The learned District Judge, by order dated 01. 09. 2017 disposed of the said application with a direction to the parties to approach Bihar State Election Commission (sic authority) so that the election for constitution of the Committee be conducted as soon as it was possible. Further, the State Election Commission(sic Authority) was directed to conduct election of the said Committee, preferably within three months. The District Judge, it is the petitioner's case, erred while mentioning Bihar State election Commission instead of Bihar State Election Authority which is the body entrusted with the duty to conduct election to various bodies, other than office bearers of local self-governments. The said order of the learned District Judge was passed on Patna High Court CWJC No.17692 of 2017 dt.01-10-2020 13/29 01.09.2017.
After the election of the office bearers was held on 03.09. 2017, respondent No.1 filed another Miscellaneous application before the District Judge giving rise to Miscellaneous Case No. 173 of 2017 seeking a declaration that the said election held on 03.09 2017 was null and void and that the office bearers had no authority to function on the basis of such election. The learned District Judge disposed of Miscellaneous Case No. 173 of 2017 and interpreting Articles 8 and 31 of the By-Laws opined that every Committee should continue for five years from the date of its Constitution or until a new Committee was constituted whichever was later. He referred to his earlier order dated 01.09.2017 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 150 of 2017 whereby he had directed the parties to approach the Bihar State Election Commission (sic authority), Patna, so that election for constitution of the Committee could be conducted as soon as it was possible, preferably within three months. Despite the said order dated 01.09.2017 the parties did not approach the Bihar State Election Authority for election of Parbandhak Committee and instead they held an election on 03.09.2017 for electing office bearers of the Committee and accordingly, the learned District Judge Patna High Court CWJC No.17692 of 2017 dt.01-10-2020 14/29 concluded that the election dated 03.09.2017 was against the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws as well as his order dated 01.09.2017 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 150 of 2017. The learned District Judge recorded in his impugned order that the Committee did neither follow the order of the court dated 01.09.2017 nor the provisions as contained in Article 8 of the Constitution and the By-Laws. He accordingly held that the election of new office bearers dated 03.09.2017 was against law and while allowing the miscellaneous application, he declared the election of the office bearers as null and void. He directed the Committee functioning, prior to election of new office bearers on 03.09.2017 to function in the matter of the shrine, according to the Constitution and By-Laws.
Assailing the said impugned order dated 03.09.2017, it is the petitioner's case that the District Judge has mixed up the issues of election for the purpose of Constitution of the Parbandhak Committee and election of office bearers of the Committee by the members of the Parbandhak Committee. According to the petitioner, the learned District Judge proceeded under a misconceived notion that respondent No.1 was seeking a direction to hold election dated 03. 09. 2017 as null and void for the reason that the said election was to be held for Patna High Court CWJC No.17692 of 2017 dt.01-10-2020 15/29 constitution of the Committee whereas the election which was held on 03. 09. 2017 was for electing office bearers of the Committee. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the District Judge, out of this wrong and misplaced notion, relied on his earlier order dated 01. 09. 2017 to conclude that he had already directed to hold election of the Committee which was not carried out and election of the Committee of office bearers was held contrary to the direction contained in said order dated
01. 09. 2017. It is the petitioner's stand that there is clear distinction between Parbandhak Committee as provided in chapter IV and the Committee of office bearers as provided in Article 30 of the By-Laws. The two are distinct bodies. While Parbandhak Committee can continue for a period of five years or until a new Committee is elected, the same does not apply to the Committee of office bearers, tenure of which has been fixed has two and half years.
It is the case of respondent No.1 in his Counter Affidavit that in accordance with Article 8 of the By-Laws the Committee shall have duration of five years from the date of its Constitution or until a new Committee is constituted whichever is later. Accordingly, ordinarily the Committee was valid up to April, 2017. Referring to Article 31 (1) of the By-Laws, it is his Patna High Court CWJC No.17692 of 2017 dt.01-10-2020 16/29 case that every two and half years there has to be an election of another office bearers through election and since first election was held on 15.07.2012, subsequently after completion of two and half years another election of office bearers was held on 28.01.2015 in accordance with Article 30 of the By-Laws. It is accordingly his case that as tenure of the Committee is five years and tenure of office bearers is two and half years, since second election of office bearers was held, third election of office bearers is impermissible. It is accordingly his case that it was wrongly decided by the Committee to hold meeting on 03.09.2017 for election of the office bearers.
It is his further case that the minutes of the meeting dated 16. 07. 2017 was challenged before the learned District Judge, Patna under Article 77 of the By-Laws vide Miscellaneous Case No. 150 of 2017. During the pendency of the application certain developments had taken place, i.e. vide letter No. 670 dated 31. 07. 2017 the Deputy Secretary, Bihar Election Authority, with a view to conduct election under Article 12 of the By-Laws had directed the General Secretary of the Committee to prepare voters list and to make the same available. The voters list was however not made available. Since the meeting which was convened on 03. 09. 2017 was violative Patna High Court CWJC No.17692 of 2017 dt.01-10-2020 17/29 of By-Laws, the President of the Committee, who is one of the office bearers, had cancelled vide letter dated 27.08.2017, the meeting convened on 03.09.2017, in compliance whereof the General Secretary had cancelled the proposed meeting vide letter dated 28.08.2017. The Senior Vice President, however, vide letter dated 30. 08. 2017 overruled the decision so taken by the President and the General Secretary.
The Miscellaneous Case No. 150 of 2017 was filed challenging the outcome of the meeting held on 16. 07. 2017 wherein the decision was taken to convene the meeting dated
03. 09. 2017. In the aforesaid background the District Judge vide order dated 01.09.2017 had rightly directed the parties to approach Bihar State Election Commission (sic Authority), Patna to conduct election of the Committee as provided under Article 9 and Parbandhak Committee was accordingly directed to proceed. It is his specific case that in violation of the order passed by the learned District Judge dated 01. 09. 2017, the petitioner, misinterpreting this order, again notified the meeting scheduled to be held on 03. 09. 2017 and elected the office bearers which have been notified on 03.09.2017. Referring to Article 21 of the By-Laws it has been asserted that it stipulates of convening a meeting in every two months, on 15 days notice Patna High Court CWJC No.17692 of 2017 dt.01-10-2020 18/29 in writing served on every member of the Committee. Article 22 provides for emergency meeting on a short notice of five days, whereas Article 23 provides for convening a meeting by the General Secretary in consultation with the President. These provisions according to respondent No.1 have been violated by holding meeting on 03. 09. 2017 and accordingly the outcome of such meeting in electing office bearers is non est. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it is the case of respondents that the election held on 03. 09. 2017 is contrary to the mandate issued in the order dated 01. 09. 2017 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 150 of 2017.
Separate counter affidavit, supplementary counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 6. A preliminary objection has been taken in the Counter Affidavit to the effect that the impugned order has been passed by the learned District Judge, neither as a court nor as a tribunal but purely as a custodian of the shrine and in exercise of administrative power vested under the By-Laws. It is their case that there is no public interest element involved in the present case nor they are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is accordingly their case that this writ application under Article 226 is not maintainable. It is for this Patna High Court CWJC No.17692 of 2017 dt.01-10-2020 19/29 reason, their contention that Article 77 of the By-Laws provides a forum for a regular suit or a regular complaint before a competent court of law against any person connected with the shrine. They have pleaded that setting aside of the order dated 7.11. 2017 will amount to revival of the office bearers who were elected in terms of the meeting held on 03. 09. 2017 which itself is wholly illegal and cannot be treated to be a meeting of the Committee in the eye of law. Referring to Articles 21, 22 and 23 of the By-Laws, it has been stated in their counter affidavit, that a meeting of the Committee has to be called by the General Secretary in consultation with the President who is the chairman, as per Article 28. Further, the notice for meeting has to be given 15 days in advance and only in case of emergency five days prior notice for meeting of the Committee can be given. According to the said respondents, the meeting was originally convened on 03. 09. 2017 but was subsequently called off by order of the President dated 27. 08. 2017 and consequent letter issued by the General Secretary on 28. 08. 2017. However, without consulting the President and the General Secretary, vide a letter dated 02. 09. 2017 the petitioner convened the meeting to be held on 03. 09. 2017. They have supported the stand of respondent No.1 that election of office Patna High Court CWJC No.17692 of 2017 dt.01-10-2020 20/29 bearers has to be held twice in five years and not beyond. In the light of the order dated 01.09. 2017 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 150 of 2017, it was not permissible to proceed with the re-election of the office bearers whereby the parties were directed to take steps for election of the Committee itself, the respondents have contested.
In a rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner to the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 6 it has been stated that the schedule of the meeting for election of Executive Committee was fixed as 03. 09. 2017, by all the 14 members of the Committee on 16. 07. 2017 itself and, therefore, there was no requirement of further notice in respect of the meeting on 03.09. 2017. Through letter dated 30. 08. 2017, only a clarification was made in respect of certain confusion which was being raised regarding election of the office bearers on 03.
09. 2017.
Supplementary counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents stating inter alia that the President of the Committee was not consulted for the meeting held on 03.
09. 2017 because of which he did not participate in the meeting on the said date. It has also been mentioned that notices were sent to the members of the Committee about the meeting on 03. Patna High Court CWJC No.17692 of 2017 dt.01-10-2020 21/29
09. 2017 through courier services on 02. 09. 2017 to Delhi, Ludhiana, Lucknow, Calcutta, Jamshedpur and Patna city, who, by no stretch of imagination, could have managed to reach the destination on a such short notice. It has further been stated that in compliance of the order passed by the learned District Judge, in Miscellaneous Case No. 150 of 2017, as the custodian of the shrine and other attached Gurudwaras, the Deputy Secretary, Bihar State Election Authority had fixed a schedule for conduct of election of the Committee under Article 9 (1) of the By-Laws and the date of publication of voters list was fixed on 15.11.2017 to 30.11.2017 in the different offices mentioned therein. Thereafter, the persons whose names had been left out in the voters list were required to submit applications for addition of their names by 05. 12. 2017 with due fees in an application form to be obtained from the office of the Committee between 15. 11. 2017 to 30. 11. 2017. The gist of this supplementary affidavit is that subsequent to the orders passed by the learned District Judge steps have been taken by the Bihar state Election Authority to hold election for Constitution of the Committee. It has been stated that with the election processes at this advanced stage, the petitioner, by filing this application has attempted to hamper the process of Patna High Court CWJC No.17692 of 2017 dt.01-10-2020 22/29 election on one ground or the other. According to the respondents, the present set of office bearers have brought on record, in one of its meetings held on 18. 11. 2017, the permission relating to celebration of 351st birth anniversary of Guru Govind Singh Ji Maharaj and the sum of Rs. 4 Crore 50 lakh had been allocated for the purpose. The arrangements for celebration of the birth anniversary had already been completed by the present set of the office bearers headed by the President and the General Secretary.
A second supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents number 2 to 6 bring on record certain subsequent developments after filing of the writ application to the effect that the writ petition itself, has become infructuous and the issues raised have thus become merely academic. It has been specifically stated that on 03. 01. 2018 the Deputy Secretary of the Bihar state Election Authority had asked the General Secretary of the Committee for preparation of the voters list and the General Secretary in turn took steps for publication of the information in the newspapers regarding initiation of election process of the Committee for the year 2017-18 which was published on 10.01.2018 in two newspapers. An election Officer for the fresh election was Patna High Court CWJC No.17692 of 2017 dt.01-10-2020 23/29 appointed. It is accordingly the case of the respondents that the process of election of the Committee has begun and therefore, for all practical purposes this writ application has become infructuous. The newly elected Committee shall be electing its office bearers as stipulated in Article 30 of the By-Laws, the respondents contend, which will elect the office bearers in accordance with the By-laws.
In view of what has been averred in the second supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 6, in the court's opinion, it is correct that the issues involved in the present writ application no more survives in view of the subsequent developments to the effect that the election for Constitution of the Committee has been held in accordance with the By-Laws. In the interests of justice, however, the court intends to clarify certain position emerging out of the various provisions under the By-Laws in relation to election for the purpose of Constitution of a Committee in accordance with Articles 8 and 9 of the By-Laws and election of office bearers of the Committee by the Committee in accordance with Articles 30 and 31 of the By-Laws to obviate any similar confusion in future.
In no uncertain terms Article 8 of the By-Laws provides Patna High Court CWJC No.17692 of 2017 dt.01-10-2020 24/29 that every Committee shall continue for five years from the date of its Constitution or until a new Committee has been constituted, whichever is later. There should thus be, no iota of doubt that a Committee constituted under Article 9 of the By- Laws can continue for a period of five years and if no new Committee is constituted immediately thereafter, the said Committee shall continue till Constitution of a new Committee in accordance with Article 9 of the By-Laws. Evidently thus, a Committee constituted under Article 9 of the By-Laws can have term of more than five years as its life does not automatically come to an end by efflux of time on completion of the said period of five years, though an election of the Committee becomes due. It is for the apparent purpose that the management of the shrine and these establishments attached thereto is never disrupted and remains in continuity because of non-holding of the election. It is also clear on plain reading of Article 9 of the By-Laws that out of 15 members of the Committee, three members are to be nominated by the District Judge, Patna. Some of the rest of the members are to be nominated by different Gurdwara Parbandhak Committees/societies (other than the shrine in question), whereas some of them are to be elected. This process results into inclusion of 14 members of the Patna High Court CWJC No.17692 of 2017 dt.01-10-2020 25/29 Committee. The said 14 members are to co-opt one member and thus the total number of members of the Committee becomes
15. Once a Committee is constituted in accordance with Article 9 of the By-Laws, the said Committee is enjoined with a duty to elect its office bearers as noted above, as stipulated in Article 30 of the By-Laws. If Articles 30 and 31 are read together, it can be easily discerned that the election of the office bearers is to be held every two and half years. This is the mandate of Article 31. It further provides that the office bearers elected at the first meeting of the Committee shall hold office until new office bearers have been elected at the meeting of the Committee. Let there be no room for doubt that whereas Article 8 contemplates period of the Committee for five years or until a new Committee is constituted, Article 31 prescribes holding of election of the office bearers every two and half years. If new office bearers are not elected, in that case the office bearers may hold the office bearers, until new office bearers have been elected. In case of office, thus, an election becomes due after completion of two and half years. The mandate that there should be an election of office bearers every two and half years as envisaged in Article 31 of the By-Laws cannot be overlooked and if any step is taken to conduct an election of office bearers after its completion of Patna High Court CWJC No.17692 of 2017 dt.01-10-2020 26/29 two and half years, the same cannot be said to be breaching any provision under the By-Laws, rather the same would be in accordance thereof. It cannot be said that only twice office bearers can be elected as the period of the office bearers is two and half years and the life of a Committee is five years. If the Committee continues to function even after completion of five years in the absence of new constitution, it is permissible to hold an election for the office bearers, even third time if the office bearers have completed a period of two and half years.
The Court finds merit in the contention on behalf of the petitioner that the learned District Judge, Patna failed to appreciate that whereas the proceeding which had given rise to Miscellaneous Case No. 150 of 2017 and the order dated 01.09.2017 passed in the said proceeding related to an election for the purpose of constitution of a Committee within the meaning of Article 3 (a) of the By-Laws read with Article 9 thereof, the Miscellaneous Case No. 173 of 2017 was in relation to election of office bearers under Article 30 and 31 of the By- Laws. The learned District Judge failed to appreciate the distinction between the two elections and erroneously considered the decision to elect the office bearers of the committee by the members of the committee to be in breach of Patna High Court CWJC No.17692 of 2017 dt.01-10-2020 27/29 his order dated 01. 09. 2017 in Miscellaneous Case No. 150 of 2017. In the court's opinion, the learned District Judge committed an error apparent on the face of it, in his order dated
03. 09. 2017. It is held accordingly.
This Court doesn't find any substance in the submission made on behalf of the respondents that this writ application under Article 226 is not maintainable, for the simple reason that as noted above, earlier the petitioner had filed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which had given rise to C. Misc. No. 1633 of 2017 wherein an interim order was passed by a coordinate bench of this court on 21. 11. 2017. The said order was put to challenge by filing an intra-Court Appeal which had given rise to LPA No. 1633 of 2017. The Division Bench set-aside the order dated 21. 11. 2017 passed by the coordinate bench on the ground that an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the District Judge, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not maintainable. The Division Bench concluded that the District Judge was the custodian of the Committee in question and the power exercised by him under Article 77 of the By-Laws was nothing but an administrative power exercised by the District Judge in his capacity as a custodian of the Committee. The Patna High Court CWJC No.17692 of 2017 dt.01-10-2020 28/29 Division Bench clearly held that the petition should have been under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of specific observation made by the Division Bench of this court as noted above, the objection in respect of maintainability of the present writ application cannot be sustained by this Court and is accordingly hereby rejected.
The central issue which arose in the present proceeding has been answered, certainly for the reason to allay any doubt in respect of a requirement of holding of election of office bearers of the committee after every two and half years and though the term of the committee has been prescribed as five years, if the committee continues to function beyond five years because of absence of election of the committee, even a third election of office bearers as stipulated under Articles 30 and 31 of the By- Laws is permissible.
The court has considered not to issue any direction in the present proceeding in view of uncontroverted fact asserted in the second supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that the writ application itself has become infructuous as the process of election of the committee by Bihar State Election Authority had already begun long back.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17692 of 2017 dt.01-10-2020 29/29 This disposes of this application.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date