Hardeo Singh and another vs Union of India and another

V.K. Bist, J. - Writ petitioners filed present writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to frame the Scheme of Management for the administration of Gurudwara Nanakmata Sahib in conformity with the judgment dated 20.08.1935 passed by Mr. J.R.W. Benett Esquire, ICS, District Judge, Kumaon in Civil Suit No. 3 of 1934 (N), Sardar Santok Singh and others v. Chaudhary Ram Singh alias Sarupanand under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wherein the Court had framed the guidelines for administering/ managing the said Shrine. Further prayer has been made for quashing the Bye laws so framed and registered under the Societies Act, in 1959.

Earlier the matter was heard and decided on 31.03.2006 in the following manner:

"Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and after going through the record, I am of the opinion that it would be desirable and imperative in the interest of justice and also in the interest of the holy shrine and its devotees that an effective scheme which had been laid down in the judgment dated 20.08.1935 passed by the District Judge, Kumaon in Civil Suit N0.3 of 1934 (N) may be implemented in strict sense and the spate of litigation on same and similar issues which stands determined and finalised should not be permitted to be reopened.

In view of above, the matter is sent to the District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar for formulating a Committee including the persons mentioned in the supplementary affidavit of the petitioners, which shall form part of this order. However, the name of Sardar Gyani Swaran Singh has been proposed by both the parties for the effective management of the Shrine and I direct accordingly.

In the changed circumstances, the members of Management Committee may be increased but other norms framed in the scheme by the then District Judge, Kumaon shall remain the same. The District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar is directed to give effect to the scheme formulated earlier vide judgment and decree dated 20.08.1935 after hearing the parties within three months. All suits and petitions pending in different Courts relating to similar controversy shall stand disposed of accordingly."

Against the aforesaid judgment, Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 21091-21092/2007 were filed, in which an application I.A No. 11-12 of 2011 was filed by the petitioners and respondent no. 1 before Hon�ble Supreme Court for disposing of the Special Leave petition in terms of the settlement reached in between them. It was submitted by the applicants in I.A. No. 11-12 of 2011 before Hon�ble Supreme Court that they are the only persons concerned and, therefore, the settlement is reached between them is acceptable to the community. The applicants for impleadment, however, opposed the said settlement. After considering the facts and circumstances, Hon�ble Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition by directing the High Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously, preferably within three months. However, the Hon�ble Supreme Court observed in the order that it will be open to the petitioners and the first respondent to report the settlement to the Single Judge of the High court before whom the matter is pending. If and when the settlement is reported, the Single Judge will consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Hon�ble Supreme Court also observed that the High Court will also hear the other parties to the writ petition and any person desiring to be impleaded, in accordance with law. After remand, the parties were heard several times On 14.10.2011 following order was passed by this Court:

"List this petition in the week commencing 31st October, 2011 in the daily cause list.

It is directed that money and belongings of the concerned Gurudwara including donations and offerings received during Deepawali Mela shall be properly accounted for and shall not be dispensed with till the next date of listing. The amount so received shall not be invested anywhere in any manner."

Court has been informed that after the above order, entire offerings received in the name of Gurudwara Nanakmatta Sahib is being kept separately.

This Court also tried to find out the possibilities of amicable settlement/agreement between the parties. Firstly, the petitioners as well as the respondent no. 6 filed settlement before this Court, but the same was opposed by respondent nos. 12 to 14. Thereafter, on different dates, following orders were passed:

Order dated 30.03.2012:

"Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 21091-21092/2007, an application I.A No. 11-12 of 2011 was filed by the petitioners and respondent no.1, in the Special Appeal, for disposing of the Special Leave petition in terms of the settlement reached in between them, which they filed before Hon�ble the Supreme Court. The Hon�ble Supreme Court mentioning this fact in the order dated February 7, 2011 also mentioned that neither respondent no. 2, who was also a writ petitioner, nor respondent nos. 3 to 6 are parties to the said settlement. It was submitted by the petitioners as well as first respondent before Hon�ble the Supreme Court that they are the only persons concerned, and therefore, the settlement is reached between them and settlement reached is acceptable to the community. The applicants for impleadment, however, opposed the said settlement. After considering the facts and circumstances, Hon�ble the Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition by directing the High Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously, preferably within three months. Hon�ble the Supreme Court observed in the order that it will be open to the petitioners and the first respondent to report the settlement to the Single Judge of the High court before whom the matter is pending. If and when the settlement is reported, the Single Judge will consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Hon�ble the Supreme Court also observed that the High Court will also hear the other parties to the writ petition and any person desiring to be impleaded, in accordance with law.

After the order of Hon�ble the Supreme Court, the petitioners as well as the respondent no. 6 filed settlement before this court and the same was opposed by respondent nos. 12 to 14. Besides it, after the order of Hon�ble the Supreme Court, several persons got themselves impleaded. It appears to me that there may be some other persons, who are interested in the matter and who may come forward for their impleadment, therefore, before disposing of the writ petition, I think it just and proper to publish a general notice in the newspaper, asking the interested persons to get themselves impleaded, in case, if they are not the party in the instant petition, for which learned counsel appearing for the parties also agreed.

In view of above, let a general public notice be published in the name of Registrar General of the Court in daily newspapers, namely, �Amar Ujala� and �Dainik Jagran� having wide circulation in both the States i.e. State of Uttarakhand as well as State of Uttar Pradesh, indicating in the notice that the matter will be listed on board on 23rd April, 2012 in the High Court. Such notice will also indicate that the matter before the High Court is pending for framing of a scheme for management of the administration of Gurudwara Shri Nanakmatta Sahib. The notice will also indicate that such persons, who are interested in the matter, may file application for their impleadment in the writ petition before the next date fixed.

The petitioners shall bear the expenses for the publication at the initial stage, however such cost shall equally be divided/ borne by all the parties. For this purpose Mr. Saurabh Pandey, Advocate is authorised to collect the sum from the counsel for other parties.

List this petition on 23rd April, 2012."

Order dated 23.04.2012:

"Heard learned counsel for the parties. Today learned counsel for the parties informed the Court that in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 30.03.2012, Mr Bhupendra Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 6 approached Dainik Jagran newspaper and he was told that for getting the news item published in all editions Uttar Pradesh as well as Uttarakhand amount of Rs. 2,99,808/- will be charged. He submitted that though that amount has to be paid by all the parties but the petitioners are not in a position to deposit the same.

Learned counsel for the parties informed the Court that news item be published in �Dainik Jagran� Uttarakhand edition published from Nainital, Dehradun, Haridwar and also Uttar Pradesh edition published from Bareilly and Moradabad. They further submitted that by publishing the news item from these places, purpose would be served.

Submission of learned counsel for the parties appears to be genuine. Accordingly, order dated 30.03.2012 is modified and it is ordered that general public notice be published in the name of Registrar General of the Court in daily newspapers, namely, �Dainik Jagran� as well as �Amar Ujala� in Nainital, Dehradun, Haridwar, Moradabad and Bareilly edition indicating in the notice that matter will be listed on the board on 17.05.2012 in the High Court. Such notice will also indicate that the matter before the High Court is pending for framing of a scheme for management of the administration of Gurudwara Shri Nanakmatta Sahib. Notice will also indicate that such persons, who are interested in the matter, may file application for their impleadment in the writ petition before the next date fixed. List this petition on 17.05.2012 in daily cause list for orders."

Order dated 17.05.2012:

"Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submitted that in fact most of the parties to the writ petition have paid contribution at later stage, but the respondent nos. 7 and 9 have not paid the contribution till date. He submitted that the respondent nos. 7 and 9 will make payment of the contribution within a period of three days.

Keeping in view the facts mentioned above, it is directed that let a general public notice be published in the name of Registrar General of the Court in daily newspapers, namely, �Dainik Jagran� as well as �Amar Ujala� in Nainital, Dehradun, Haridwar, Moradabad and Bareilly edition indicating in the notice that matter will be listed on the board on 02.07.2012 in the High Court. Such notice will also indicate that the matter before the High Court is pending for framing of a scheme for management of the administration of Gurudwara Shri Nanakmatta Sahib. Notice will also indicate that such persons, who are interested in the matter, may file application for their impleadment in the writ petition before the next date fixed."

After publication of notice, several applications were filed for impleadment and same were allowed on different dates. At present, there are 206 respondents in the case.

During the pendency of this writ petition, intervention application (CLMA No. 7530 of 2015) was moved by Mr. Jaspal Singh seeking permission to intervene in the present writ petition. Another intervention application (CLMA No. 14430 of 2015) was moved on behalf of Mr. Raghuveer Singh, Mr. Surender Singh, Mr. Rajajeet Singh, Mr. Harbhajan Singh and Mr. Amrik Singh seeking permission to intervene in the present writ petition.

Thereafter, the matter was heard by this Court several times. The Court was contemplating the possibility of amicable settlement between the parties. Proposals were also placed. Some agreed for the same, but others not. The case was heard and was reserved for orders. Then, one day Registry informed the Court about an application filed by respondent no. 6 regarding settlement between the parties and the Court, keeping in mind the interest of justice, passed the following order on 14.10.2015:

"The judgment is under dictation.

Registry has informed that an application has been filed by Shri Jasvinder Singh Gill (respondent no. 6) narrating the following facts:

"2. That in nutshell, a Receiver was appointed, which was changed from time to time and at present, District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar has been appointed as a Receiver, who is holding the charge of the said Gurdwara Sahib.

That in view of the fact, that the sole Petitioner has moved an application seeking permission to withdraw the above-noted Writ Petition for the reason that all the parties have now amicably settled all the issues and disputes pertaining to the management and affairs of Gurudwara Nanakmatta Sahib, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the above noted Writ Petition be disposed of finally and the Receiver (District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar), be directed to handover the charge to the old elected committee (list enclosed), which succeeded in the elections held in the year 1998, in the interest of justice.

That is has also been further agreed that the old elected committee will hold the office for a maximum period of one year from the date of taking over the charge and within a period of said one year, it will get the fresh elections of the management committee of the Gurdwara Nanakmatta Sahib as per the new bye-law to be framed strictly in consonance with the judgment dated 29.08.1935 passed by Mr. JRW Benett Esquire, ICS, the then District Judge, Kumaun in Civil Suit No. 03 of 1934, which has attained finality.

That it has also been agreed that the aforementioned bye-laws shall be drafted by S. Jagjeet Singh Virk, Advocate, S. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocate and Sumit Bajaj, Advocate, within a period of three months from the date of disposal of the above-noted Writ Petition. All the parties hereby authorizes to all the aforementioned advocates to get the said bye-laws registered in the concerned office. However, it has also been agreed that the said advocates may make necessary changes as to the nominated members. The period of new elected committee is agreed to be for a period of five years.

That it has also been agreed to all the parties that they shall abide by the aforesaid terms and conditions and will not raise any issue or dispute whatsoever in the above-noted context".

Following prayer has been made by the applicant/respondent no. 6 in the application:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon�ble Court may graciously be pleased to dispose of the above noted Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms, for the ends of justice."

From the perusal of the application moved by the respondent no. 6, it transpires that parties are heading towards compromise. In such circumstances and in the interest of justice, this Court thinks it appropriate that before deciding the writ petition on merit, the application moved by the respondent no. 6 should be considered.

List the application moved by the respondent no. 6 at the earliest when I am sitting singly under the heading "For the consideration of the application (CLMA No. 11092 of 2015)"."

On 20.11.2015, this Court heard the matter. Some complaints were made about offerings not being maintained properly. On that day, following order was passed:

"On 14.10.2011 this Court directed that money and belongings of the concerned Gurudwara including donations and offerings received during Deepawali Mela shall be properly accounted for and shall not be dispensed with till the next date of listing and the amount so received shall not be invested anywhere in any manner. The District Magistrate was directed to file an affidavit regarding actual amount received during two years prior to date of passing of the order. That order has not been complied.

This Court has been informed that the account is being maintained. But it has also been informed that the donation and offerings received by the Gurudwara is not being maintained properly.

The Additional Chief Standing Counsel is directed to file an affidavit of the person concerned indicating therein the amount received by the Gurudwara, during last five years. It has been informed that property of the Gurudwara Sahib Nanakmatta is being disposed of by way of gift deed and lease deed/fraudulent document. The Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall also reply this allegation.

The District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar is directed to appear before this Court on 07.12.2015 at 04:00 p.m.

List on 07.12.2015 at 04:00 p.m.

Registry is directed to obtain necessary orders from Hon�ble the Chief Justice in this regard."

Matter was listed on 07.12.2015 at 04:00 p.m. That day, the District Magistrate was present, but the Deputy Advocate General sought two weeks� time to file affidavit. Time was granted upto 21.12.2015. On 15.10.2015, Withdrawal Application (CLMA No. 12369 of 2015) was also filed on behalf of petitioner no. 1. In the affidavit filed in support of the withdrawal application, it is mentioned that petitioner no. 1, namely, Mr. Hardeo Singh, is the sole contesting petitioner, inasmuch as, the petitioner no. 2, Mr. Santosh Singh Bal, has already expired. It is further mentioned in the said affidavit that the petitioner no. 1 does not want to press the aforesaid writ petition and sought permission of this Court for the withdrawal of the instant writ petition in the interest of justice. Affidavit filed in support of withdrawal application is short. Relevant paragraphs are being reproduced below:

"1. That the deponent is sole contesting petitioner in the above noted writ petition as the petitioner no. 2 Santosh Singh Bal had already expired and as such he is well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case deposed to below.

That the present petitioner does not wants to press the aforesaid writ petition and seeks the permission of this Hon�ble Court for withdrawal of the instant writ petition in the interest of justice.

That in view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that this Hon�ble Court may graciously be pleased to permit the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition, otherwise the applicant/ petitioner no. 1 shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."

On 21.12.2015, objections against the withdrawal application (CLMA No. 14431 of 2015) were filed by the five interveners, namely, Mr. Raghuveer Singh, Mr. Surender Singh, Mr. Rajajeet Singh, Mr. Harbhajan Singh and Mr. Amrik Singh. Thereafter, on 22.12.2015, objections to the withdrawal application were filed on behalf of respondent nos. 19, 23, 24, 25, 31, 35 and 41.

Withdrawal of the writ petition has been opposed by stating that petitioner has no right much less legally vested right to withdraw the present writ petition, which involves the interests and welfare of entire Sikh Community. It is submitted that large numbers of interested persons have been impleaded as respondents in the writ petition. Large number of persons of Sikh Community moved intervention applications, claiming to be heard at the time of disposal of the writ petition. Now, the petitioner has filed an application for the withdrawal of the writ petition, giving no reasons for moving such withdrawal application. It is further submitted in the objection that it appears that the withdrawal application has been moved with malafide intent, having been influenced by some such elements, who do not want to see that affairs of the holy shrine i.e. Nanakmata Gurudwara Saheb are managed in accordance with law and as per the wish and wisdom of the Sikh Community. Sole intention of the applicant in filing withdrawal application is to frustrate the judgment which is expected to be passed in this writ petition in the interest of entire Sikh Community. It is further submitted that the withdrawal application is wholly misconceived, inasmuch as, the same has been moved in such a fashion as if the issue involved in the present petition relates to the personal right of the petitioner over his personal property. It is submitted that since the matter involved in the present writ petition is of vital importance of entire Sikh Community, any person, even the petitioner, has no vested legal right to claim to withdraw the writ petition. At the time of filing of the present writ petition, it was the petitioner who had himself highlighted the interests and welfare of the entire Sikh Community and propagated to protect the interest and welfare of the Sikh Community through the present writ petition. It is submitted that now the petitioner cannot be permitted to take a turn and claim to withdraw the writ petition and thereby, jeopardise the interests and welfare of the entire Sikh Community.

Some counsel, who was not supplied copy of withdrawal application, asked for the copy of withdrawal application. The Court directed the petitioners� counsel to supply copy of the same to the respondents counsel. On 23.12.2015, when petitioners� counsel insisted for withdrawal of the writ petition and some counsel seriously opposed the same, the matter was heard and reserved.

After remand of the case by the Hon�ble Supreme Court, it was sincerely felt that the amicable settlement between the parties will be in the interest of the devotees and in the interest of general public having faith in the Gurudwara Nanakmata Saheb. Almost every time, impression was given that possibilities of settlement are there. Due to this reason, writ petition was not decided on merit and more than once, opportunities were given to the parties to settle the matter amicably. Even though sincere efforts were made by some of the parties to this petition, unfortunately, parties could not agree for any of the proposals.

Now, first of all, brief facts of the case:

Gurudwara Shri Nanakmatta Sabhib is one of the most sacred and religious places of Sikh shrine and much revered by the Sikh community in particular and others in general. According to the petitioners �Gurudwara Shri Nanakmatta Sahib� has a very respected history behind, where Guru Nanak Dev, the first Guru of Sikh Panth visited this place some 526 years back and sowed the seeds of Sikh religion from this place in this region and eventually by the efflux of time, he brought changes and the area started expanding in length and breadth and attracting persons having deep faith in the holy Guru and Sikhism eventually. Since there was some disputes among the members of Sikh Community regarding the management of the said holy Gurudwara, a Civil Suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure was instituted before the District Judge, Kumaon in the year 1934, which was registered as Civil Suit No. 3 of 1934 (N) "Sardar Santok Singh and others v. Chaudhary Ram Singh alias Sarupanand". The District Judge, Kumaon in Civil Suit No. 3 of 1934 (N) framed the following issues:

(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?

On deciding the aforesaid issues, the District Judge, vide his judgment and decree dated 20.08.1935, framed the scheme for the management of the Shrine. Same is being reproduced below:

"(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 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.

(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."

No appeal was preferred thereafter by any of the parties before the higher Courts against the aforesaid order passed by the District Judge, Kumaon and the judgment and decree became final and binding to all the parties.

At first stance, when matter was heard, Shri S.K. Agarwal, Senior Advocate and Shri C.D. Bahuguna, Senior Advocate also appeared for the petitioners. At that stage, case was put in this manner. On 10.07.1959, an application under the Societies Act, was moved before the Registrar, Societies and Chits, Kumaon Region (Haridwar) by the managing committee of the Gurudwara Shri Nanakmatta Sahib with its aims and objects. A Memorandum of Association/certificate for the renewal of the Society was filed on 27.11.1995. Thereafter, amendment was also made in the Rules and Regulations in the year 1997. It was alleged that framing of rules and registration of committee for the management of the Shrine is in violation of the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Kumaon in Civil Suit No. 3 of 1934 (N). Registration of the Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee Shri Nanakmatta Sahib by the Registrar of D.P. Lucknow is erroneous in the eyes of law in view of the final judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Kumaon. It was submitted that the registration had been done with malafide intention inter alia is ultra vires, and is a nullity and is liable to be struck down. In violation of the order passed by the District Judge, the Society has inducted number of members of the Committee from 5 to 31 in order to gain the personal and political interests of certain influential and politically strong Sikh politicians. The society formed in the year 1959, did not even effectively manage the affairs of the estate of the Gurudwara and not protected and managed the financial and religious interest of the Gurudwara and has always remained a fraction ridden management resulting into the serious acrimony among themselves. It was also submitted that the management and administration of the Shrine is deteriorating. The money generated by the devotees in the form of offerings should have been put to a maximum use for the upliftment of the shrine in general and the Sikh Community in particular.

At later stage, i.e. after filing of withdrawal application, on 23.12.2015 Shri Sanpreet Singh Ajmani submitted that no instructions have been given to any Senior Advocate to appear in the case. Shri C.D. Bahuguna, Senior Advocate was present and submitted that since the matter involved public interest, nobody can be prevented from addressing the Court. There were heated exchanges also. Court heard that counsel alone who was instructed by the petitioner no. 1, of course, on the question of withdrawal of the petition.

This Court, first of all, has to consider the withdrawal application. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no. 2 Santosh Singh Bal has already expired and petitioner no. 1 Hardeo Singh is sole petitioner in the writ petition and he does not want to press the writ petition and petition be permitted to be withdrawn. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is exclusive right of the petitioner to pursue his case. Now, since the sole petitioner does not want to press the writ petition, the writ petition should be dismissed as withdrawn. He further submitted that no person, including the respondents, has any right to oppose the withdrawal application and the petitioner cannot be compelled to pursue his case further. He requested that writ petition be dismissed as withdrawn.

Counsel opposing the withdrawal application submitted that withdrawal application has been filed with malafide intention. It is submitted that the application has been moved in such a fashion as if the issue involved in the present petition relates to the personal right of the petitioner over his personal property. It is also submitted that sole intention of the applicant in filing the withdrawal application is to frustrate the judgment which is expected to be passed in the writ petition. It is also submitted that since the matter involved in the present writ petition is of vital importance of entire Sikh community, the petitioner has no legal right to withdraw the writ petition.

For considering the typical controversy which has arisen at this stage in this petition, few provisions of C.P.C. have to be looked into. Same are being reproduced hereinafter:

Rule 1 Order 1 of C.P.C.:

"[1. Who may be joined as plaintiffs.- All persons may be joined in one suit as plaintiffs where-

(a) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist in such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and

(b) if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise.]"

Rule 8 (4) of Order 1 of C.P.C.:

"8. One person may sue or defend on behalf of all in same interest.-

(1)���

(2)���

(3)���

(4) No part of the claim in any such suit shall be abandoned under sub-rule (1), and no such suit shall be withdrawn under sub-rule (3), of Rule 1 Order 23, and no agreement, compromise or satisfaction shall be recorded in any such suit under Rule 3 of that Order, unless the Court has given, at the plaintiff�s expense, notice to all persons so interested in the manner specified in sub-rule (2)."

Rule 10 (2) of Order 1 of C.P.C.:

"(2) Court may strike out or add parties.-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added."

Rule 1 Order 23 of C.P.C.:

"[1. Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim.- (1) At any time after the institution of a suit, the plaintiff may as against all or any of the defendants abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim"

Rule 1A Order 23 of C.P.C.:

"[1-A. When transposition of defendants as plaintiffs may be permitted.- Where a suit is withdrawn or abandoned by a plaintiff under Rule 1, and a defendant applies to be transposed as a plaintiff under Rule 10 of Order I, the Court shall, in considering such application, have due regard to the question whether the applicant has a substantial question to be decided as against any of the other defendants.]"

It is clear that any party can be impleaded in the suit if his interest is involved in the suit; the Court, at any stage of the proceedings, may add party; suit can be filed in representative capacity; transposition of defendant as plaintiff is possible and suit can be withdrawn at any stage. Where any person suing or defending in any suit does not proceed with due diligence in the suit or defence, the Court may substitute in his place any other person having the same interest in the suit. Though the Code of Civil Procedure as such is not applicable to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by virtue of the explanation added to Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure; but, the Writ Court can adopt and apply any such provisions. In what circumstances, petition filed in representative capacity can be withdrawn and whether Court can deny such permission, these are the questions to be considered by the Court.

In the matter of "Mt. Jaimala Kunwar and another v. Collector of Saharanpur and others" reported in AIR 1934 Allahabad 4, the Court held that the moment an application is made by the plaintiff to withdraw the suit, the suit does not cease to exist in the eye of the law till an order is passed by the Court and when the Court comes to pass an order it can pass an order not only on the application of the plaintiff, but also on the application of persons who are interested in the suit and who desire that they should be allowed to conduct the suit. The Court further held that where the plaintiff sues in a representative character it is not open to him to put an end to the litigation by merely withdrawing from the suit. He may, no doubt, go out of the suit, but that does not put an end to the litigation where other people are interested in it and have a right to come in and continue the litigation.

In the matter of "V. K. Kunju Kombi Achan and another v. Ammu" reported in AIR 1932 Madras 21, the Court has held as follows:

"I conclude accordingly that for the purpose of passing orders on these petitions the second appeal should still be taken to be pending and that being so, I consider that it is clearly in the interests of the tarwad that the appellant should not be allowed to withdraw until the two applicants have been added as supplemental appellants''. It seems reasonable, however, that their action should not involve the tarwad in any expense which might have been avoided by the withdrawal of the second appeal. They have themselves undertaken personally to meet any costs which may be incurred and I make the order substituting their names for that of the present appellant on condition that they jointly and severally give security for any costs that may be awarded against them in second appeal in the sum of L150 to the satisfaction of the District Munsif of Palghat within one month from the date of the receipt of this order."

Present petition was filed by two petitioners, namely, Hardeo Singh and Santosh Singh Bal in representative capacity. They pursued their case for a considerable long period. Initially Union of India, State of Uttarakhand, State of U.P. and District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar were made parties. Subsequently, parties were added and at present, 206 respondents are being represented by various advocates. The matter relates to Gurudwara Nanakmata Saheb. Prayer in the writ petition is mainly for framing of Scheme of Management for the administration of Gurudwara Nanakmata Saheb. Such prayers cannot be said a prayer involving private rights of the petitioners. It is known to everybody that Gurudwara Nanakmata Saheb revered by all. In fact, interest of entire Sikh community is involved in the present writ petition, as they want that the affairs of the holy shrine should be managed in transparent manner and, of course, in accordance with law. It cannot be denied that public interest is involved in the case. The writ petition was filed by the petitioners in the representative capacity as mentioned by the petitioners in paragraph no. 2 of the writ petition. Petitioners pursued the petition long way. Suddenly, after the death of petitioner no. 2, withdrawal application has been filed by the petitioner no. 1. Date of death of petitioner no. 2 is not mentioned. It is also not mentioned that legal heirs of the petitioner no. 2 are also not interested in pursuing the petition. It is also not mentioned that in the event of withdrawal of the writ petition, everybody interested in the matter will be happy and petition is being withdrawn after consulting all. I do not find any ground in the withdrawal application on which basis withdrawal application can be allowed. Court is not inclined to close the writ petition at the behest of petitioner no. 1.

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 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.

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 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.

Let steps be taken within two weeks from today.

List this petition on 25.04.2016.