Back
2020 Supreme(SC) 496
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, K.M. Joseph, JJ.
Sardar Bahginder Singh s/o Gurucharan Singh – Appellant
Versus
Sardar Manjieeth Singh Jagan Singh and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2964 of 2020 Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7217 of 2020, Civil Appeal No. 2966 of 2020 Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7227 of 2020 Civil Appeal No. 2965 of 2020 Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7219 of 2020
Decided on : 20-08-2020
For the Appellant(s) :Meenakshi Arora, Shashibhushan P Adgaonkar, Pradnya S Adgaonkar, Surabhi Guleria, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Vibha Dutta Makhija, Vishal Jugdand, S. Jasbeer Singh, Ganesh Gadhe, Prashant Dahat, Prakash Ranjan Nayak, Rahul Chitnis, Sachin Patil, Smarhar Singh, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Nomination of four members of Board for administration of Gurudwara and Committee of Management – Exclusive statutory authority for making nomination of four members is vested in Sachkhand Hazuri Khalsa Diwan, Nanded. State Government cannot assume that power to itself.
(2) Practice that is followed cannot be contrary to interpretation of provisions of Statute.
Headnote:
Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Sachkhand Shri Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib Act 1956 – Section 6(1)(viii) – Nomination of four members of Board for administration of Gurudwara and Committee of Management – Challenge as to – Board was under Control of Revenue and Forest Department of Government of Maharashtra – There is a maze of conflicting claims between two factions, including issue of alleged removal of first respondent as a trustee of Diwan – High Court has appropriately not embarked upon an enquiry to adjudicate upon these claims – Justifiably so, since two inquiry applications which have been filed under Section 22 of MPT 1960 are pending before Assistant Charity Commissioner – Change reports, being subject matter of pending enquiry by Assistant Charity Commissioner, it is neither appropriate nor proper for this court to enter into thicket of factual disputes between contesting factions – Exclusive statutory authority for making nomination of four members under Section 6(1)(viii) is vested in Sachkhand Hazuri Khalsa Diwan, Nanded – Section 6(1)(viii) clearly indicates that it is Diwan alone which has power to make a nomination of four members – State Government cannot assume that power to itself – Diwan consists of collective body of all members who together are entitled to vote under Memorandum of Association – Together they constitute Diwan – Neither President individually nor any office bearer can be equated with Diwan – Authority to nominate four members to Board under Section 6(1)(viii) is not entrusted to an office bearer of Working Committee or for that matter to Working Committee – Practice that was followed cannot be contrary to interpretation of provisions of Statute – High Court was correct in its interpretation of statute when it observed that it was not open to State Government to arrogate power of nomination to itself or to usurp powers of Diwan – Statute has entrusted authority to make a nomination under Section 6(1)(viii) to Diwan – In authorising Sachkhand Hazuri Khalsa Diwan, Nanded to nominate four members, Section 6(1)(viii) entrusts that authority to collective body of members of Diwan which is entitled to select four individuals to be nominated to statutory Board – This process must be initiated forthwith and concluded within a period of three months – Conclusion of High Court that notification issued by State Government on 21 June 2019 was contrary to provisions of Section 6 (1) (viii) of Nanded Act 1956, upheld. (Paras 9, 21, 24, 27, 28, 29 and 32)
Facts of the case:
Prior to the re-organisation of states, Hyderabad Legislative Assembly enacted a law called Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Sachkhand Shri Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib Act 1956. On receiving the assent of the President on 16 September 1956, the Nanded Act 1956 was published in the Hyderabad Government Gazette on 20 September 1956. Dispute in the present case relates to the nomination of four members in terms of the provisions of Section 6(1)(viii) of the Nanded Act 1956. Under this provision, four members of the Board constituted under Section 5 are nominated by the Sachkhand Hazuri Khalsa Diwan, Nanded. Sub-Section (2) of Section 6 provides that the nomination and election of members shall be made in such a manner and within such period as may be prescribed. Appellants have questioned the locus standi of the first respondent (petitioner in the writ proceedings before the High Court) to challenge the appointment of the members made by the State Government on the ground that he is not a trustee of the Diwan. Issue which the Court has to decide turns upon the interpretation of the provisions of Section 6(1)(viii).
Findings of Court:
High Court was correct in its interpretation of the statute when it observed that it was not open to the State Government to arrogate the power of nomination to itself or to usurp the powers of the Diwan. The statute has entrusted the authority to make a nomination under Section 6(1)(viii) to the Diwan. Diwan comprises of the collective body of all members together to whom the power to make a nomination is entrusted. The provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 6 read with the definition of the expression “prescribed” in sub-Section 2(e) lead to the conclusion that the nomination and election of members under Section 6 has to be made in the manner prescribed by the rules made by the Government under the Act, including the bye-laws made by the statutory board constituted under the provisions of Chapter II.
Result : Appeals disposed of with observations.
JUDGMENT
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.
Leave granted.
2. Prior to the re-organisation of states, the Hyderabad Legislative Assembly enacted a law called the Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Sachkhand Shri Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib Act 19561["the Nanded Act 1956"]. On receiving the assent of the President on 16 September 1956, the Nanded Act 1956 was published in the Hyderabad Government Gazette on 20 September 1956. Section 2(c) defines the expression 'Gurudwara' thus:
"'Gurudwara' means the institution known as the Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Sachkhand Shri Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib and includes the premises called the Gurudwara with all buildings contained therein, together with all additions thereto or alterations thereof which may hereafter be made from time to time and shrines specified in the schedule."
3. Chapter II is titled "Control of the Gurudwara". Section 3 provides for the constitution of a Board for the administration of the Gurudwara and a Committee of Management. Section 4 provides for the administration of the affairs of the Gurudwara by the Board in accordance with the provisions of the Nanded Act 1956. The Board is constituted by the provisions of Section 5 to be a body corporate. The controversy in this case turns on the interpretation of Section 6 which provides for the composition and constitution of the Board. The provision is extracted below:
"Section 6(1) The Board shall consist of:
i) Two members nominated by the Government;
ii) Three members nominated by the Government from the Sikhs of the State:
Provided that after the expiration of the first term of the Board these three members shall be elected from among the Sikhs of the State in such manner as may be prescribed;
iii) One member nominated by the Government from among the Sikhs of the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad;
iv) One member nominated by the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee from among the Sikhs of the State of Madhya Pradesh;
v) Three members nominated by the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee;
vi) Two members elected by and from among the Sikh members of the Parliament;
vii) One member nominated by the Chief Khalsa Diwan of Amritsar;
viii) Four members nominated by the Suchkhand Hazur Khalsa Diwan, Nanded.
2) The nomination and election of members under this section shall be made in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed.
3) i) If the members mentioned in clauses (iv) to (vii) (both inclusive) of sub-section (1) are not nominated or elected, as the case may be within the prescribed period, the Government shall specify such further period as it may deem fit within which such members shall be nominated or elected. If such members are not nominated or elected within the further period so specified the Government shall nominate a person or persons to fill the vacancy or vacancies, as the case may be and the person or persons so nominated shall be deemed to be a member or members duly nominated or elected by the respective body.
ii) The term of office of the members nominated under clause (i) shall expire at the time at which it would have expired if he had been nominated or elected, as the case may be, within the period prescribed under sub-section (2).
4) After the members have been nominated or elected, as the case may be, in accordance with the foregoing provisions the Government shall notify the fact of the Board having been duly constituted; and the date of the publication of the notification shall be deemed to be the date of the constitution of the Board."
Section 10 provides that where a vacancy occurs in the Board owing to death, resignation or for any other reason, the new member is to be nominated or elected in the manner in which the member whose seat is to be filled was nominated or elected. Section 11 provides for the election of a President. Section 22 (1) provides for the constitution of a Committee of Management consisting of (i) the Collector of Nanded or an officer appointed by the government; (ii) the Superintendent of the G
