V.K. Bali, J. - India, which is Union of States, territories whereof are the territories of the States and Union Territories or such other territories as may be acquired, as specified in the First Schedule, can, by virtue of Article 3 of the Constitution of India, have new States by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States, by law to be made by Parliament. State of Punjab diminished in its area first by virtue of partition of the country in the year 1947, i.e., prior to November 26, 1949 when people of India adopted and gave to themselves the Constitution. The area of State of Punjab then increased by virtue of States Reorganisation Act, 1956 when Pepsu was merged in Punjab. However, it once again got reduced in area when Government of India decided, in principle, on March 21, 1966 to reorganise the existing State of Punjab on linguistic basis. The existing State of Punjab, State of Haryana, Union Territory, Chandigarh and the transferred territories to the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh, all four parts being then known as consequential States. Necessary, supplementary, incidental and consequential provisions, in relation to such reorganisation were made by an Act known as Punjab Reorganisation Act (here-in-after referred to as the Act of 1966). Every endeavour, it appears, was made to provide and cater for all situations that may necessitate smooth reorganisation by virtue of Act of 1966 but, as is inherent, some complex difficulties in this mammoth task were bound to arise. One such difficulty in the field of operation of existing laws pertains to an Act know as The Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (here-in-after referred to as the Act of 1925). Considering such difficulties not only to be intricate in nature but also of great importance, a Full Bench of three Judges was constituted in 1970 (Shiromani Gurdwaras Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar & Ors. v. Lachhman Singh Gill & Ors., AIR 1970 Punjab & Haryana (Full Bench) 40). The Division Bench, seized of the matter in hand, considering it to be of great importance, which may also need reconsideration of the Full Bench even if not on all points considered by the earlier Full Bench of three Judges, has referred it to the Honble Chief Justice to constitute a Bench larger than three Judges, although not specifically mentioning therein that the earlier Full Bench of three Judges may need reconsideration and that is how this matter is before us, a Bench of five Judges constituted by the Honble Chief Justice.

2. Before we may deal with the issues raised in this case, that have been framed by the Division Bench while referring this case to a larger Bench, it will be appropriate to give facts of this case, even though in brevity as also, as to how precisely the matter has come up before a Full Bench of five Judges. Before we may take that exercise in hand, we would like to mention here that the main pleadings and the primary contentions of learned counsel for the parties, have since been noted in the reference order itself but we are taking this exercise in hand as otherwise the reference order might have to be read as a part of this order.

3. Kashmir Singh, petitioner herein, was appointed as a Member of the Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission (for short Commission) under the provisions of the Act of 1925 vide notification dated July 4, 1989. It is his case that after his appointment as member of the Commission, he was elected as President of the Commission and since then he has been continuously working as Member/President of the said Commission. S. Dara Singh and S. Raghbir Singh were also appointed as Members of the Commission which consists of three members. State of Punjab issued notification dated January 6, 1999 vide which petitioner and two other members were removed and S. Man Mohan Singh, S. Amrik Singh and S. Ajwant Singh Mann were so appointed. Petitioner challenged this notification by this writ petition, wherein notice of motion was issue