IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Where a statute provides for election to an office and also a machinery or forum for determination of dispute arising out of election, the aggrieved person should pursue his remedy and the writ petitions ought not to have been entertained for resolving the dispute relating to the election.
2. A writ petition challenging selection and appointment to some posts without impleading the selected candidates is not maintainable.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India—Article 226—Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1971—Sections 31 and 33—Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957—Sections 15 to 20—Writ petition challenging validity of elections held for electing members of Executive Board of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee—Maintainability—There is factual dispute—Whether some members of the Committee could not participate in the meeting on account of alleged confusing and contradicting stand taken by President and the Secretary is a question of fact—Writ petitioner specifically averred that he was keen to contest for the office of President but on account of alleged confusion regarding the date of meeting he could not participate in the same—Alternative remedy of filing election petition available—Whether writ petition filed challenging the election was maintainable?—(No)—Writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
       Held : The pleadings of the parties show that the dispute raised was purely factual in nature as to whether some confusion had been created regarding the date fixed for holding of the meeting of the Committee for electing the office bearers of the Executive Board. The dispute could more appropriately be resolved by examination of oral evidence to be led by the parties. The writ petitioner Avtar Singh Hit claimed that on account of the confusion in dates he could not attend the meeting though he was very keen to participate in the meeting and contest for the office of the President of the Executive Board. In view of the nature of the dispute raised the proper remedy for the petitioner was to file an election petition as provided in Section 31 of the Act where parties could have got opportunity to lead oral evidence. No exceptional or extraordinary circumstances were disclosed which could justify recourse to the extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution and for not availing the remedy provided by the statute. We are, therefore, of the opinion that on the facts and circumstances of the present case, the writ petitions ought not to have been entertained for resolving the dispute relating to election and on this count alone the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed. (Para 18)
       (ii) Constitution of India—Article 226—Writ petition filed challenging validity of elections held for electing members of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee—Non-impleading of newly elected office bearers of the Executive Board—Writ petition is liable to be dismissed—No relief could have been granted to writ petitioners—Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1971—Sections 31 and 33.
       Held : In our view no relief could have been granted to the writ petitioner on account of the fact that the newly elected office bearers of the Executive Board, who would have been affected by the decision of the writ petitions, were not impleaded as party to the writ petitions.(Para 20)
       This being the settled legal position the non-impleadment of the newly elected office bearers of the Executive Board was fatal and no relief could have been granted to the writ petitioners. The result of granting any relief in the writ petitions, as was done by the learned single Judge, was that the members of the newly elected Executive Board lost the office which they were holding without affording them an opportunity to present their case which is clearly impermissible in law. The writ petitions were liable to be dismissed on this count as well.(Para 21)

JUDGMENT

G.P. Mathur, J.—Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 1.3.2006 passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court by which Letters Patent Appeals were allowed and the judgment and order of the learned single Judge disposing of four writ petitions was set aside. The learned single Judge had allowed the writ petitions and countermanded the election of the members of the Executive Board of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee, which was held on 19.12.2005 and had issued a further direction that fresh election be held on 14.2.2006.

3. The controversy raised in all the four appeals is identical and for the sake of convenience we will refer to the facts of Civil Appeal No. 4532 of 2006 (arising out SLP (C) No. 5188 of 2006) (Avtar Singh Hit vs. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee and others). The principal issue raised is regarding the validity of the election held on 19.12.2005 for electing the members of the Executive Board of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee (hereinafter referred to as DSGMC). In order to understand the controversy involved it is necessary to make a brief reference to the relevant statutory provisions.

4. The Parliament enacted The Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to provide for the proper management of the Sikh Gurdwaras and Gurdwara property in Delhi and for matters connected therewith. Section 2(c) of the Act defines "Committee" and it means the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee established under Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 provides for establishment of a committee called the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee for the proper management and control of the Gurdwaras and Gurdwara property. The Committee shall be a body corporate with the name aforesaid having perpetual succession and a common seal and shall by such name sue and be sued. Section 4 provides for composition of the Committee. Sub-section (a) of this Section provides that forty six members shall be elected from various wards into which Delhi is divided in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Besides them some members have to be co-opted and nominated in the manner prescribed in the section. Section 5 provides that the term of the office of the members of the Committee shall be four years. Section 16 provides for the election of the office bearers and members of the Executive Board. Sub-section (5) of Section 16 lays down that the President and the other members of the Executive Board elected under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall hold office for a term of one year but shall be eligible for re-election for one more term only. The proviso to this sub-section says that an outgoing office bearer or member shall continue in office until election of his successor is held. Sub-section (6) of Section 16 lays down that the election of the President and other office bearers and members of the Executive Board under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or any subsequent annual election to any of those offices shall be held in such manner as may be prescribed by Rules. Section 40 of the Act provides that the Committee may make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder for carrying out its functions under the Act. Regulation 4(1), which has been made by the Committee and has some relevance for the decision of the case reads is as under: -

"4. Meetings of the Committee/Executive Board etc.

(1) Annual General Meeting

(i) Annual General Meetings of the Committee shall be held in the month of September every year to hold election of Office-bearers and members of the Executive Board. The date of election once announced by the President/General Secretary shall not be postponed.

(ii) Among other items, the Annual General Meetings shall consider and approve:

(a)Annual Report of the Committee;

(b)Annual Budget containing proposals for

1)Revised estimates of the current year;

2)Budget estimates for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 959

Cases Referred (10)