Uttarakhand High Court
Manjeet Singh And Others vs Hardeo Singh And Others on 27 October, 2016
Author: U.C. Dhyani
Bench: Rajiv Sharma, U.C. Dhyani
Reserved Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Reserved on: 19.10.2016
Delivered on: 27.10.2016
Special Appeal No.278 of 2016
Manjeet Singh and others ..... Appellants
Versus
Hardeo Singh and others ..... Respondents
____________________________________
Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr.B.S. Parihar, Standing Counsel for the Union of India.
Mr. Syed Nadim, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Razia Beig, Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.
Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.K. Verma, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
Mrs. Balvinder K. Brar, Advocate assisted by Mr. Arjun Singh Brar, Advocate for the respondent
Nos.8 & 13.
Mr. B.S. Adhikari and Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajamani, Advocates for private respondents.
(2) Special Appeal No.276 of 2016
Hira Singh ..... Appellant
Versus
Hardeo Singh and others ..... Respondents
____________________________________
Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anil Joshi and Mr. Prashant Chandra, Advocates for
the appellant.
Mr.B.S. Parihar, Standing Counsel for the Union of India.
Mr. Syed Nadim, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Razia Beig, Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.
Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.K. Verma, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
Mrs. Balvinder K. Brar, Advocate assisted by Mr. Arjun Singh Brar, Advocate and Ms. Charanjeet
Kaur, Advocate for the respondent No.8.
Mr. B.S. Adhikari and Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajamani, Advocates for private respondents.
(3) Special Appeal No.296 of 2016
Sukhvinder Singh & others ..... Appellants
Versus
Hardeo Singh and others ..... Respondents
____________________________________
Mr. Naveen Tewari, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Tej Singh Bisht, Standing Counsel for the Union of India.
Mr. Syed Nadim, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Razia Beig, Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.
Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.K. Verma, Advocate for the respondent No.4.
Mrs. Balvinder K. Brar, Advocate assisted by Mr. Arjun Singh Brar, Advocate and Ms. Charanjeet
Kaur, Advocate for the respondent No.8.
Mr. Sumit Bajaj, Advocate for private respondent.
2
(4) Special Appeal No.297 of 2016
Dr. Gurmit Singh and another ..... Appellants
Versus
Hardeo Singh and others ..... Respondents
____________________________________
Mr. Prashant Chandra and Mr. Alok Dalakoti, Advocates for the appellants.
Mr. B.S. Parihar, Standing Counsel for the Union of India.
Mr. Syed Nadim, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Razia Beig, Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.
Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.K. Verma, Advocate for the respondent No.3.
Mrs. Balvinder K. Brar, Advocate assisted by Mr. J.S. Virk, Advocate for the respondent No.13.
Mr. B.S. Adhikari and Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajamani, Advocates for private respondents.
(5) Special Appeal No.269 of 2016
Joga Singh and others ..... Appellants
Versus
Union of India and others ..... Respondents
____________________________________
Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.K. Verma, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. B.S. Parihar, Standing Counsel for the Union of India/respondent No.1.
Mr. Syed Nadim, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent No.2.
Ms. Razia Beig, Standing Counsel for the State of U.P./respondent No.3.
Mrs. Balvinder K. Brar, Advocate assisted by Mr. Arjun Singh Brar, and Ms. Charantjeet Kaur,
Advocates for the respondent No.8.
Mr. B.D. Pandey, Mr. B.M. Pingal, Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Mr. G.D. Joshi, Mr. J.S. Virk, Mr. K.K. Tiwari,
Mr. P.C. Petshali, Mr. Ramesh Tamta, Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Mr. Sumit Bajaj and Mr. T.S. Phartiyal,
Advocates for private respondents.
Coram : Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J.
Hon'ble U.C. Dhyani, J.
Per: Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J.
Since, the common questions of law and facts are involved in these special appeals, the same are taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. These special appeals are preferred against the judgment dated 8th September, 2016 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No.7064 of 2001.
3. Key facts, necessary for adjudication of these appeals are that 'Gurudwara Shri Nanakmatta Sahib' has 3 a very auspicious and respected history. Shri Guru Nanak Dev Ji, the first Guru of Sikh Panth visited this place 526 years back. The 'Gurudwara Shri Nanakmatta Sahib' is one of the most sacred and one of the holiest religious places of Sikh shrine and revered by the Sikh community, in particular, and other communities in general. Civil Suit No.3 of 1934 was instituted in the year 1934 in the Court of District Judge, Kumaon, wherein the following issues were framed by learned District Judge: -
(i) Whether the shrine at Nanakmatta is a Sikh Gurudwara or a Udasi Shrine?
(ii) Whether there is any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature connected with this shrine?
(iii) If so, are the plaintiffs so interested in the Shrine as to be sufficiently qualified to institute the suit?
(iv) If the Shrine is a Sikh Gurudwara and there is a public trust connected with it, is the defendant disqualified and incompetent to hold the position of Mahant?
(v) If he is not disqualified and incompetent has he abused his position as Mahant by committing all or any of the acts of malfeasance or misfeasance alleged in the plaint?
(vi) If so, are the plaintiffs entitled to all or any of the relief claimed?
4. Learned District Judge, Kumaon, vide judgment dated 20.08.1935 rendered in Civil Suit No.3 of 1934, formulated the Scheme of Management for running 4 the affairs of the Shrine, which is reproduced hereinbelow: -
"(i) There will be a committee of management in place of defendant Chaudhary Ram Singh alias Sarupa Nand who is removed from his post of Mahant. There will be five member of this Committee, namely the four plaintiffs in the case Sardar Santokh Singh, Sardar Indrajit Singh, Sardar Ram Singh and Sardar Alwant Singh, and one other Sikh nominated by the Deputy Commissioner, Nainital, after consultation with the other four members of the committee. He should, if possible, be a resident of the Nainital District or failing that of one of the adjoining districts.
(ii) The members of this committee will hold office for five years during which period nomination to any vacancy that may occur will be made by the Deputy commissioner, Nainital after consulting the other members of the committee. A member so appointed must be a Sikh, residing if possible in the Nainital District or failing that in one of the adjoining districts.
(iii) The members of the Committee will elect a Chairman and Secretary from among themselves and will make all 17 necessary regulations for the conduct of business.
(iv)The committee will make necessary arrangements for the administration of the property attached to the temple, and for worship at the temple and will engage staff for the management of the estate and the temple.5
(v) The committee will maintain regular accounts and submit a copy thereof annually to the Deputy Commissioner and to the District Judge, Nainital.
(vi) About four months before the expiry of this period of five years, the District Judge will consider and make such modifications in the Scheme, if any, as he considers necessary after consulting the members of the committee and the Deputy Commissioner, Nainital, such modifications, if any, to take effect from the end of this period."
5. The judgment passed by the District Judge, Kumaon on 20.08.1935 has attained finality.
6. According to the averments made in the writ petition, an application under the Societies Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was moved on 10.7.1959 before the Registrar, Societies & Chits, Kumaon Region (Haridwar) by the managing committee of the Gurudwara Sri Nanakmatta Sahib. The application was allowed and the society was registered under the Act. The Rules and Regulations of the Committee of Gurudwara Shri Nanakmatta Sahib were amended in the year 1997 which were also brought on record before the writ court.
7. Writ Petition No.7064 (M/S) of 2001 was filed before this Court, seeking proper management and administration of the holy shrine, namely, "Gurudwara Shri Nanakmata Sahib". After incorporation of amendments, the following reliefs were sought: -
a. "Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus, commanding the parties to the writ 6 petitioner to abide by the Settlement/ Scheme, as approved by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of the holy shrine and the community, for proper management and administration of the holy shrine, namely, "Gurudwara Sri Nanakmatta Sahib". b. Issue a writ, order of direction, in the nature of mandamus, declaring that henceforth management and administration of the holy shrine, namely, "Gurudwara Sri Nanakmatta Sahib" shall be run by the settlement/ scheme approved by this Hon'ble Court, and the Receiver appointed or any interim committee constituted, pursuant to an order of this Hon'ble Court dated 06.05.2016 or any other order, shall be deemed to have become non-operational. c. Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
8. It would be pertinent to mention, at this stage, for completion of facts that one of the petitioners Hardeo Singh moved an application on 15.10.2015, seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition. The permission was declined by this Court vide order dated 18.03.2016. For the sake of convenience, Paragraph Nos.24 and 25 of the said order is quoted as below: -
24. It is true that in normal circumstances, the application for withdrawal of writ petition should be allowed and nobody should be permitted to oppose the withdrawal application.
It is also true that petitioner cannot be compelled to pursue his case against his wish; but, in certain circumstances, such permission 7 can be denied. It is duty of the Court to feel satisfied that there exist proper grounds for granting permission for withdrawal of a case. Court should be more careful when withdrawal application is filed in a writ petition which has been filed in representative capacity. Whether withdrawal of the writ petition will be in the interest of that community/those people, on whose behalf petition is filed, is to be seen by the Court. Writ petition filed in the representative capacity cannot be permitted to be withdrawn at the behest of private individual. Withdrawal cannot be allowed without valid reasons. Withdrawal of the writ petition can be allowed in rear circumstances, viz., purpose, for which the writ petition was filed, is fulfilled or such purpose has become infructuous or the persons, for whose benefit writ is filed, want its withdrawal. But in no event, withdrawal of the writ petition can be allowed where such withdrawal is opposed by any person whose interest is involved. Withdrawal application must bear valid reasons.
25. In view of above discussion, I decline to grant permission to petitioner no.1 to withdraw the writ petition at this stage. Since more than 200 respondents have been impleaded or got themselves impleaded in the writ petition and expenditure has also been incurred by parties and since the interest of Sikh community is involved, I direct the petitioner no.1 to get the 8 general public notice published in the name of Registrar General of this Court in one daily newspaper (either 'Dainik Jagran' or 'Amar Ujala') in Nainital, Dehradun, Haridwar, Moradabad and Bareilly edition indicating in the notice that matter relating to framing of Scheme for Management of the administration of Gurudwara Shri Nanakmata Saheb is pending in the High Court in Writ Petition No. 7064 (M/S) of 2001 and the matter will be listed on 25.04.2016. It will also be indicated in the notice that any person interested may file an application before the High Court for his impleadment as co-petitioner/supplemental petitioner or application for transposition as petitioner.
9. A notice was also directed to be got issued to the general public in the name of Registrar General of this Court in one daily newspaper (either 'Dainik Jagran' or 'Amar Ujala') in Nainital, Dehradun, Haridwar, Moradabad and Bareilly edition. The interested parties were permitted to intervene. The matter then went before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by S.L.P. No.21091-21092 of 2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the writ petition, itself, be disposed of on merits within six months w.e.f. the date of order 18.4.2016. It is in these circumstances that the writ petition was disposed of by learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 8.9.2016. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present special appeals.
910. It is evident from the records that various suggestions/schemes were prepared by the parties for running the affairs, however, since the allegations and counter-allegations were levelled, these were not rightly found feasible to be accepted by learned Single Judge.
11. The fact of the matter is that petitioner no.1 Hardeo Singh also filed an affidavit on 27.9.2011, to the effect, that the compromise entered into between Hardeo Singh and Jasvinder Singh Gill was placed in a meeting organized at Gurudwara Sri Nanakmatta Sahib on 7.8.2011 before the Sangat. The entire Sangat unanimously accepted the compromise and it was decided that all parties will submit their acceptance to the compromise before this Court and should request for the acceptance of compromise so that the dispute pertaining to the Management Committee is finally decided at the earliest.
12. This suggestion was also objected to by Sardar Lal Singh. Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties did not accept the settlement.
13. Respondent nos.38 to 75, in the writ petition, also prayed that fresh elections may be held and members may be elected only from the State of Uttarakhand. It also transpires from the record that in the year 1959, a Society named as Prabandhak Committee, Gurudwara Sri Nanakmatta Sahib, District Nainital (Uttarakhand) was registered under the Societies Registration Act. Memorandum of association of the Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Sri Nanakmatta Sahib, was registered in the office of Registrar, Societies and Chits, Kumaon Area, Nainital, District Nainital on 10 16.11.1987. The amendment was also carried out, as noticed hereinabove, in the year 1997. There was also a dispute whether the amendment was, in fact, ever carried out in the memorandum of association in the year 1997.
14. In view of the claims and counterclaims, allegations and counter-allegations, learned Single Judge, in view of the reliefs sought for by way of amendment, formulated a Scheme to hold fair, transparent and impartial elections. The Court, in larger public interest, also appointed a Receiver to manage the affairs of religious body.
15. Affidavit of the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar sworn on 05.04.2016 was filed before the Court. According to the averments made in the affidavit, the development activities were being carried out at Gurudwara Sri Nanakmatta Sahib.
16. Learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the Receiver should not be appointed for unduly longer period and his continuation, in the religious affairs, would be detrimental. Thus, the proper elected body should work to run the affairs of Gurudwara. Accordingly, the Court issued as many as 18 (eighteen) mandatory directions for holding the fair, free and impartial elections. The name of Sardar Kanwar Amrinder Singh, H.J.S., Registrar of this Court, was suggested at bar to conduct the elections.
17. Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellants, has vehemently argued that Sardar Kanwar Amrinder Singh was not a proper person to conduct the elections. There is no merit in his 11 contention. Learned Single Judge, after ascertaining the wishes of the Members, has appointed Sardar Kanwar Amrinder Singh being an upright competent officer. The submission that he could be influenced by one of the groups is ill-founded.
18. Argument has also been advanced that the affairs of the Gurudwara should be run as per the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Kumaon. However, the fact of the matter is that the subsequent developments are also to be taken into consideration. The scheme formulated by the District Judge could not be relevant for all the times to come. By the efflux of time, the changes are bound to be made to run the affairs of Gurudwara in a most effective and democratic manner.
19. The endeavour of this Court is to ensure that the affairs of the Gurudwara Committee are run in a very democratic manner by holding the fair, transparent and impartial elections.
20. Now, it would be for the duly elected members to run the affairs of the Gurudwara in its best interest and to make suitable arrangements. Petitioners, themselves, have sought intervention of this Court to frame a Scheme. The Scheme now stands formulated by learned Single Judge by issuing the elaborate directions covering the entire gamut.
21. Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Senior Advocate for the appellants, has also argued that the Dera Kar Sewaks may be permitted to do the Kar Sewa. This prayer does not fall within the ambit of the appeal in view of the 12 mandatory directions issued by this Court from time to time, including the directions issued vide judgment dated 8.9.2016.
22. Learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition on 8.9.2016, has rightly given liberty to the Election Officer to constitute a Committee of Five Members, on the basis of their antecedents, for assisting him in conducting elections. It was also brought to the notice of the Court, during the course of hearing, that the election process has now commenced and the Notification dated 27.9.2016 has also been issued whereby the guidelines/calendar have been prepared. It is settled law that once the election process has commenced, the Courts should not interfere in the same.
23. Accordingly, there is no merit in these appeals and the same are thus, dismissed. The Election Officer is directed to conduct the elections on the basis of the Notification, dated 27.9.2016. The Secretary (Home) shall be personally responsible to maintain the law and order in the State of Uttarakhand during the course of election process. The Secretary (Home) is also directed to provide sufficient/adequate security to Mr. Sardar Kanwar Amrinder Singh till the election process comes to an end.
(U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Rajeev Sharma, J.)
October 27, 2016
Rdang