Baldev Singh Randhawa vs Union of India and others

V. Ramaswami, C.J.—This writ petition has been filed by two Petitioners, who are Advocates. The first of them claims to be President of the Bar Association, Batala, and Joint Secretary of Shromani Akali Dal, District Gurdaspur and the second is the convenor of Free Legal Aid Committee, Gurdaspur. They also claimed that they are on the electoral roll constituted for the purpose of election to the Board constituted under the Provisions of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, which is known as Sikh Gurdwaras Prabandhak Committee, for short "S.G.P.C.". As such, they claimed that they have statutory right and have a direct interest in the affairs of the S.G.P.C. and, therefore, persons interested they are filing this petition.

The main reliefs prayed for in the writ petition are: To declare the meeting held on October 16, 1987, for election of the Executive Committee for S.G P C. as illegal, without authority and against the provisions of the Act and consequently all the proceedings taken there as null and void, that the meeting for electing the Executive Committee was not properly convened and that there was no, free and fair election. Direction was also sought against the Union of India and the State Government restraining them from issuing any notification on the strength of the two lists sent to it by two groups of members for authentication and publication of the notification, and (2) that the dismissal of the five Head Priests and appointment of new incumbents in pursuance of a meeting held on May 30, 1988, was unlawfull and against the provisions of the Act. In our opinion, the second question can arise only if the relief relating to the first question is considered and decided. We, therefore, propose to consider the question of validity of convening of the meeting for the election of the Executive Committee on October 16, 1987, and the question whether there was free and fair election on that day and if there was a free, fair and valid election which is the Committee which was duly and legally elected. The S.G.P.C. is constituted by election as provided under the Act. The provisions of the Act require the State Government to notify the fact of the Board having been duly constituted and the date of publication shall be deemed to be the date of the constitution of the Board. u/s 51 of the Act, the members of the Board shall hold office for five years from the date of its constitution or until the constitution of a new Board, whichever is later. The Board was constituted on the last occasion in the year 1979, but since no general election was held for the constitution of a new Board on the expiry of five years, the Board that was constituted in 1979 still continues to function. Section 62 deals with the election of the members of the Executive Committee of the S G.P.C. at the first general meeting of the Board after its constitution. The Committee consists of a President, two Vice Presidents (one senior and one junior) a General. Secretary and eleven members The procedure for constitution of the subsequent Executive Committees is provided u/s 63. There is no dispute that there was an election some time in November 1986 and the Executive Committee was duly elected. There is also no dispute that this duly elected Executive Committee called for a general meeting of S G.P.C. for electing a new Executive Committee and the date fixed for election was October 16, 1987. However, the Petitioners have questioned the convening of the meeting at Anandpur Sahib on the ground that such general meetings to elect the Executive Committee and other office bearers were usually and traditionally held in November every year and that also at Amritsar, which is the Headquarters of the S.G.P.C and not in any other place. Since there are no rules relating to the place of holding the meeting and the month in which it is to be held, it is not possible for us to hold that by the mere fact of convening the meeting in October instead of November and at Anandpur Sahib and not at Amritsar, the meeting itself could be said to be illegal or not validly held. It is seen from the allegations in the petition that because of some differences in political ideologies, the members of the S G.P.C formed themselves into groups and this groupism came to the surface in the meeting which had been held for election of the Executive Committee on October 16,1987. It is stated that pandemonium prevailed in this election meeting, there was a free for all game, prevalence of confusion and mele and that even there was firing of shots, hit and run injuring several persons. These facts also had appeared in the newspapers and in fact had not been seriously disputed. In the process, the two factions seem to have held separate meetings and elected their own office bearers and members of the Executive Committee. The State Government received a letter dated October 16, 1987, written by one Harinder Singh claiming to be the Chairman and Acting President of the S.GP.C. Amritsar, giving certain names as the persons who were elected as President, senior and junior Vice Presidents, General Secretary and eleven members. Another letter was received from Surjit Singh Barnala in which he had stated that on the same day at the same time in the General Meeting of the S.G.P.C. held at that place, the members elected unanimously the President, Senior and Junior Vice Presidents, General Secretary and eleven members whose names were listed in that letter. It was also seen that out of the total strength of 155 members of the S G.P.C., 31 members are dead and one had resigned and, therefore, the strength had been reduced to 123. Seven members were stated to be in jail on that day and three out of India one group claimed the support of 65 members and the other group claimed the support 61 members, making a total of 126 as against the total voting strength of 123 members. It may be said that the allegation of the Petitioners is that the total number of members present was only 108 and this is confirmed by the news publications which came immediately after the meeting. It appears that in the list of members given by both the parties, 20 names were found to be common. In the circumstances, therefore, it was stated by the learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Punjab that the Government could not come to a definite conclusion as to which Committee was duly elected for purposes of authentication and publication and, therefore, they referred the matter for expert opinion of the Attorney General of India, Additional Solicitor General of India and the Advocate General of the State, but before they could get the opinion and take a decision, in the writ petition filed by one Harbans Singh Ghuman, ex-M.L.A., a learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated May 6, 1988 directed the maintenance of status quo with regard to the publication of the gazette notification.

u/s 13 of the Act, the Executive Committee shall be elected by ballot at the Annual General Meeting of the Board. The rules relating to the election of the Executive Committee are contained in the Sikh Gurdwaras Board (Ejection of Office Bearers and Executive Committee) Rules, 1925. At the conclusion of the election, Rule 11 requires the Chairman of the meeting at which the election took place to forward to the appropriate Secretary to the Government a return showing the names of the persons elected as President, Senior Vice President, Junior Vice President, General Secretary and members of the Executive Committee together with the sealed packet containing the list of duly nominated candidates prepared under the provisions of the rules, the return prepared of the tellers and the papers on which votes were recorded under the provisions of Rule 6 and Rule 9. Rule 11(2), which is relevant for our purpose, reads as follows:

On receipt of the return referred to in Sub-rule (1), the appropriate Secretary to Government shall, as soon as may be, forward an authenticated copy of the return to the Central Government who shall publish the names of the persons so elected in the Official Gazettee.

Thus, the rule contemplates the authentication of the return given by the Chairman of the meeting and the publication by the Central Government of the names of the persons so elected in the official Gazette before we can call that there was a validly and legally ejected Executive Committee. The Sikh Gurdwaras. Election Enquiries Rules, 1925, provides for filing of election petition and questioning of the elections held for constituting the Executive Committees and other bodies. It is seen from Rule 4 that an election petition is to be filed within 14 days after the date on which the result of the election or publication in the official Gazette which publication is the one which is contemplated under Rule 11 (2) of the Executive Committee Rules. These provisions, in our opinion, show that only on and from the date of publication of the notification under Rule 11(2) it could be stated that there was a duly constituted executive Committee.

On the facts set out in the foregoing paragraphs in view of the prevalance of pandemonium, free for all and fight among the members and the receipt of two sets of names as office bearers and members of the Executive Committee elected at that meeting, it has become necessary to find out whether there was a free and (air election and which set of names of office bearers and members were the duly elected persons so as to enable the Government to authenticate the same and publish it in the official Gazette. This cannot be done without a detailed enquiry, taking of evidence and hearing of such of those who want a hearing and who had participated in the meeting. It is also not possible for us at this stage to take evidence and hold an enquiry. It is also not possible to direct the parties to file an election petition as there is no publication as contemplated in Rule 4 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Election Enquiries Rules, 1925. In the circumstances, the constitution of a fact-finding Commission to go into the question, hear parties, record evidence and submit its findings, in our opinion, is absolutely just and necessary. There can be no doubt that this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 have such a power to appoint a Commission to go into the question, record evidence hear parties and submit its findings. After such findings are given, after calling for objections of the parties, this Court would be in a better position to decide as to whether there was free and fair election and which of the office bearers and members of the Committee were duly elected. Accordingly, we appoint Justice Harbans Singh, a former Chief Justice of this Court as the Commission for such purpose to go into the question whether there was a free and fair election on October 16, 1987, and which of the persons were duly elected as office bearers and members of the committee at the meeting after giving an opportunity to the parties and recording evidence as he may deem it necessary and just. In the meantime, the Chairman of the meeting in which the election was held and the President and Acting President of the S.G P.C. are directed not to destroy the ballot papers, if any, nomination papers, if any, and all other material connected with the election which are in their possesion and every one of those records shall be made available to the commission for purposes of the enquiry. We also direct all the parties concerned to extend all cooperation to the commission in coming to a correct finding.

It was stated by the learned Advocate General that one set of office bearers and members who claim to have been elected have called for elections on November 30, 198 , for the constitution of a new Executive Committee. As already stated, such a meeting could be called for and convened only by a legally constituted Executive Com mittee. Therefore, unless we give a finding as to which group of persons were elected as office bearers or members of the Executive Committee in the election held on October 16. 1987, it will not be possble to hold that the meeting called for to meet on November 30, 1988, is legal and in accordance with the Act and the Rules. Permitting such a meeting will also create problems as to not only the validity of the newly constituted Executive Committe but also the convening of the meeting itself and that will become a live and continuous questions. In the circumstances, we consider that it is almost a crisis which has to be averted. The question of validity of the election held in 1987 is to be decided first without such a decision, no new Committee can be formed. In the circumstances, therefore, we are also of the view that it is just and absolutely necessary that the elections proposed to be held on November 30,1988, whereever is the venue and whoever has called for it shall have to be stopped forthwith and we accordingly issue a writ of prohibition against the S. G P. C. and any Executive Committee or other authority holding a meeting for the election of the new office bearers and members of the Executive Committee utill further orders.

The State Government shall provide the Commission all the facilities and accommodation for holding the enquiry as required by the Commission. The Government shall also meet all the expenditure relating to the enquiry and provide such other facility or amenities as may be required by the Commission.

The cases will be listed again after receipt of the report of the Commission for further orders.

Sd/- S.D. Bajaj, J.

Sd/- G.R. Majithia, J.