Back
2008(4) Supreme 245
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
S.B. Sinha, J.
Kashmir Singh — Appellant
versus
Union of India & ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7024 of 2002
WITH
Civil Appeal No………….. Of 2008
[arising out of SLP © No. 20803 of 2002]
Civil Appeal Nos. 5546, 8171-8172, 8169-8170 of 2003 and 3162-3165 of 2004
Decided on : 13-05-2008
(b) Interpretation of Statutes – In construing a statute, an interpretation which would lead to violation of the constitutional provisions, cannot be taken recourse to – While construing an ongoing statute the Court must take into consideration the changes in the societal condition – The provisions may be required to be given a purposive construction for which even the past practice as also the Statement of objects and Reasons of the Act may have to be looked into. (Paras 41, 45 and 52)
2008 (6) SCALE 325; JT 2008 (1) SC 31; AIR 1957 SC 397; (2000) 8 SCC 655; (2001) 4 SCC 534; (1992) 3 SCC 178; (1964) 4 SCR 869; (1957) 1 SCR 701 – Relied upon.
© Constitution of India,1950 – Article 310 – It provides for a tenure, but does not contemplate a life tenure – Allowing a person to hold office indefinitely would be opposed to the Constitutional scheme. (Para 41)
(d) General Clauses Act, 1897 – Section 16 – The ‘power to appoint’ carries with it the ‘power to remove’. (Para 55)
(e) Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 – Sections 40 and 70 and Article 16, Constitution of India – Members are to be appointed from time to time – If the tenure is for the whole life of the Member, there cannot be any fresh appointment – If there cannot be any fresh appointment, the same would be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. (Para 61)
(1975) 2 SCC 671; (2004) 9 SCC 755 – Relied upon.
AIR 1970 P & H 40 – Referred.
(f) Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 – Section 72(1) – When a power has been conferred upon the State by the Central Government, it exercises a statutory power – Such power cannot be held to be confined to its territorial jurisdiction. (Para 67)
Facts of the case :
1. In terms of the provisions of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee was constituted. Appellant was appointed as a member of the Commission in terms of a notification dated 4.07.1989. He was elected the President thereof. Along with him one S. Dara Singh and S. Raghbir Singh were also appointed as members of the Commission.
2. A new Board was constituted on 21.11.1996. While the Commission was functioning with the said members, the State of Punjab issued a notification on 6.01.1999 whereby and whereunder all the members including the appellant were removed and in their places S. Man Mohan Singh, S. Amrik Singh and S. Ajwant Singh Mann were appointed.
3. A writ petition was filed thereagainst in January, 1999. During pendency of the said writ petition, the State of Punjab issued two more notifications on or about 12.01.1999. By reason of the first notification issued under Sections 70 and 71 of the Act, the notification dated 6.01.1999 was rescinded and by reason of the second notification, the Commission was reconstituted.
4. The writ petition was amended questioning also the validity of the aforementioned two notifications dated 12.01.1999.
5. The matter was referred to a Five-Judge Bench:
6. The Bench was divided in its opinion three Judges having one opinion and one Judge and the Chief Justice differing with that opinion.
Findings of the Court :
The tenure of the members of the Commission/Tribunal cannot be held to be in perpetuity.
Result : Civil Appeal Nos. 7024 of 2002 and 8171-8172 of 2003 are dismissed and Civil Appeal arising out of SLP © No. 20803 of 2002 as also Civil Appeal Nos. 5546 of 2003, 8169-8170 of 2003 and 3162-3165 of 2004 allowed.
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J. —
Leave granted.
1. Whether rule of perpetuity would be applicable in respect of a member of a Sikh Judicial Commission (for short “Commission”) constituted under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (for short “the Act”) is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 13.09.2002 passed by a Five-Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 371 of 1999.
2. The Act was applicable to the entire territories of the undivided State of Punjab including PEPSU. By reason of the provisions of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956, the State of Himachal Pradesh was constituted, having been carved out from the State of Punjab.
3. Another Parliamentary Act, being Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (for short “the 1966 Act”) was enacted in terms whereof the State of Punjab was divided into the State of Punjab, the State of Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
4. The Central Government admittedly is the appropriate authority for passing requisite orders in relation to the matters involving inter-State Boards as envisaged under Section 88 of the 1966 Act. It issued a notification dated 19.10.1978 nominating the State of Punjab for the purpose of exercising its power under the 1966 Act.
5. In terms of the provisions of the Act, the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) was constituted. Appellant was appointed as a member of the Commission in terms of a notification dated 4.07.1989. He was elected the President thereof. Along with him one S. Dara Singh and S. Raghbir Singh were also appointed as members of the Commission.
6. A new Board was constituted on 21.11.1996. While the Commission was functioning with the said members, the State of Punjab issued a notification on 6.01.1999 whereby and whereunder all the members including the appellant were removed and in their places S. Man Mohan Singh, S. Amrik Singh and S. Ajwant Singh Mann were appointed.
7. A writ petition was filed thereagainst in January, 1999. During pendency of the said writ petition, the State of Punjab issued two more notifications on or about 12.01.1999. By reason of the first notification issued under Sections 70 and 71 of the Act, the notification dated 6.01.1999 was rescinded and by reason of the second notification, the Commission was reconstituted.
8. The writ petition was amended questioning also the validity of the aforementioned two notifications dated 12.01.1999.
9. The State of Punjab as also the Union of India, however, opposed the said writ petition contending that the State of Punjab had the requisite jurisdiction to remove the members of the Commission.
10. It was furthermore contended that the Union of India in terms of Section 72 of the 1966 Act had the requisite power to amend the law in regard to an intra-state body corporate. It was urged that by reason of the notification dated 19.10.1978, only a clarification had been issued to the effect that the word “State Government” would mean the “Government of State of Punjab” and even the State of Haryana consented thereto.
11. As regards the notifications dated 12.01.1999, it was contended that some inadvertent mistake had crept in; which was corrected by the said notifications, insofar as the source of power for issuance of the said notifications being Section 79 of the Act was not available, particularly, in view of the fact that clause (iv) thereof had been declared ultra vires by a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Shiromani Gurdwaras Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar and another v. Lachhman Singh Gill and others,1 [AIR 1970 P & H 40].
12. The matter was placed before a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. By an order dated 19.04.1999, the Division Bench formulated the following five questions and referred the matter to a Five-Judge Bench :
“(i) Whether the Government of India has power under Section 72 of the Punjab Re- organisation Act to issue notificat
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
