Harnam Singh and Another vs Swaran Singh and Another

Mahajan, J.—This order will dispose of Civil Miscellaneous petitions Nos. 652/1961 and 653/1961.

These are petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution and are directed against the order of the Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission, Amritsar, and the facts giving rise to them are that one Swaran Singh an employee of the Darbar Sahib, Amritsar, and at the relevant time working as a clerk, was transferred by the Secretary to another Gurdwara in Muktsar. He filed a petition u/s 142 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, before the Gurdwara Judicial Commission on the ground that his transfer was an abuse of powers of the Secretary or of the Board and, therefore, it should be set aside. Before the Judicial Commission, an objection was raised that the Commission had no jurisdiction to deal with such an application on the basis that the provisions of section 142 are not meant for the purpose of redressing private grievances. The grievance must have some relation to public interest. This objection was negatived by the Commission and it held that the Commission had jurisdiction u/s 142 to proceed with Swaran Singh''s petition. The Commission also passed an interim order injuncting the Secretary and the Manager from giving effect to the order of transfer. The two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution already referred to are directed against the matter relating to jurisdiction as well as to the interim order of stay of the transfer.

The short question that requires determination is as to the interpretation of section 142 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, and section 142 is in these terms-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or in the Specific Relief Act, 1877, any person having interest in a Notified Sikh Gurdwara may, without joining any of the other persons interested therein, make an application to the Commission, against the Board, the Executive Committee of the Board, or the Committee, or against any member or past member of the Board, of the Executive Committee or of the Committee, or against any office-holder or past office-holder of the Gurdwara or against any employee past or present of the Board or Gurdwara in respect of any alleged malfeasance, misfeasance, breach of trust, neglect of duty abuse of powers conferred by this Act or any alleged expenditure on a purpose not authorised by this Act and the Commission, if it finds any such malfeasance, misfeasance, breach of trust, neglect of duty, abuse of powers or expenditure proved, may consistently with the provisions of this Act and of any other law or enactment in force for the time being, direct any specific act to be done or forborne for the purpose of remedying the same and may award damages or costs against the person responsible for the same and may order the removal of any office-holder or member of the Board, Executive Committee, or Committee, responsible for the same and may also disqualify any member of the Board, Executive Committee, or Committee, thus removed from such membership for a period not exceeding five years from the date of such removal:

Provided that no such application shall be entertained by the Commission, if it is made more than six years after the date of the act or omission from which the right to make an application under this sub-section accrues and, in the case of an application against a member of the Board, the Executive Committee of the Board or the Committee, if it is made after such period or after six years of the date of his ceasing to be a member, whichever is later.

(2) The Board may make a similar application to the Commission which may, in like manner, dispose of it.

(3) The Board or any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Commission under the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) may within ninety days of the order, appeal to the High Court.

It cannot be disputed that Swaran Singh has a dual capacity in the instant case; as the employee of the Institution as well as a worshipper of the Institution. Therefore, he can be said to be a person interested in the Institution. But the question that arises for determination is whether he can on that basis get his present grievances redressed unless those complaints in any way affect or are concerned with the interests of the institution. It is nowhere stated in the petition u/s 142 that his transfer affects the interests of the institution prejudicially. All that he says is that his transfer is mala fide. That may give rise to a cause of action to him in a civil Court, but that will not attract the provisions of section 142. Those provisions in my opinion are only attracted if any act is done by a member or past member of the Board, of the Executive Committee or of the committee resulting in malfeasance, misfeasance, breach of trust, neglect of duty, abuse of powers vis-a-vis the institution. As there is no such allegation in the petition, I am clearly of the view that the provisions of section 142 are not attracted. I put it to the learned counsel for the respondent Commission whether a claim for recovery of at debt against the Gurdwara would be covered by the provisions of section 142 and he was not in a position to say that it would be covered Similarly, a claim for damages against an office-holder of the Gurdwara for his act of tort would not be covered by the provisions of section 142. The only way in which, section 142 can be read is that it does not cover cases of personal grievances by persons interested. Grievances must have some relation to the welfare of the Institution. As that allegation is lacking in the petition, I am clearly of the view that the Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain this petition.

So far as the question of the interim order is concerned, that really depends on the decision whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction in the present case. As I have held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction the interim order will by itself go overboard on that score.

For the reasons given above, these petitions are allowed and the impugned orders of the Commission are quashed, with no order as to costs.