Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Sachkhand Shri Hazur
Apchalnagar Sahib Act, 1956 __ ss.6(1)(viii); 2(a),(c),(e), 5, 6(2)&(3) – Nomination to Board u/s.6(1)(viii) – Conflicting claims – State Government through notification nominated four members (appellants) to the Board u/s.6(1)(viii) – Challenged by respondents – Notification set aside by High Court – On appeal, held: Two distinct entities are dramatis personae in the present case – First is the public trust registered under the provisions of 1950 Act – Second body is a statutory body – Exclusive statutory authority for making the nomination of four members u/s.6(1)(viii) is vested in the Sachkhand Hazuri Khalsa Diwan, Nanded – Statute does not expressly define the expression “Diwan” – Diwan was constituted as a society initially in 1350 Fasli and was registered as a public trust under the MPT Act in 1982 – s.6(1)(viii) clearly indicates that it is the Diwan alone which has the power to make a nomination of four members – State Government cannot assume that power to itself – Notification issued by State Government was contrary to s.6(1)(viii) – Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 – Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Rules, 1958 – r.6.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 There is a maze of conflicting claims between the two factions, including the issue of the alleged removal of the first respondent as a trustee of the Diwan. The 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 the MPT are pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The change reports, as they are called, being the subject matter of a pending enquiry by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, it is neither appropriate nor proper for this court to enter into the thicket of factual disputes between the contesting factions. Essentially, the issue which the Court has to decide turns upon the interpretation of the provisions of Section 6(1)(viii) of the Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Sachkhand Shri Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib Act, 1956. It is on this that the validity of the notification of the State government appointing four persons under Section 6(1)(viii) would rest. Two distinct entities are dramatis personae in the present case. The first is the public trust which is registered under the provisions of the MPT Act. Its origins lay in the Sachkhand Hazuri Khalsa Diwan Association Society which was initially registered under the Hyderabad Societies’ Registration Act of 1350 Fasli. This body was initially registered as a society with the Registrar of Company Law and Co-operative Societies of the then Government of Hyderabad under registration no. 22 of 1951. The Memorandum of Association of the Diwan indicates that it was formed to protect and guide the followers of the Sikh religion, protect the interests of the Gurudwara and to work in the interest of the Sikhs of the then State of Hyderabad. The name of the society or association was formulated as Sachkhand Hazuri Khalsa Diwan. The General Committee of the Diwan consists of all the members of the Diwan who meet bi-annually. The members of the General Committee of the Khalsa Diwan are alone entitled to vote. For the management of the affairs, there is a Working Committee consisting of 28 members The Working Committee was to be formed by the President or Pradhan at the first meeting. Elections to the Working Committee are required to be held every two years. The President is entrusted with supervision over the affairs and working of the General Committee. Several decades after the reorganisation of States, a registration certificate was issued under the MPT Act to the society as a public trust on 11 January 1982 by the Assistant Charity Commissioner Nanded in Inquiry Application No 950/1981. This created a round of disputes between the contesting factions and it was eventually on 22 January 2014 that this Court concluded the issue by recording that the registration of the Diwan as a Trust under the MPT Act have attained finality. Disputes in regard to membership were a separate matter which could be adjudicated upon in terms of the remedies available under the MPT Act. As a public trust, the Diwan is governed by the provisions of the MPT Act. [Paras 21, 22][365-C-H; 366-A-D]
Sardar Jeewansingh (d) Th. Lrs. v. Shersingh & Ors. Decision of Supreme Court dtd. 22.01.2014 in SLP (C) Nos.10139-10149 of 2011 – referred to.
1.2 The second body with which the present group of appeals is concerned is a statutory body. This was created when the Hyderabad Legislative Assembly enacted the Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Sachkhand Shri Hazuri Apchalnagar Sahib Act 1956. The statute has defined the expression ‘Gurudwara’ under Section 2(c) to mean the institution known as Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Sachkhand Shri Hazuri Apchalnagar Sahib and to include the premises of the Gurudwara together with all its buildings and the shrines which are specified in the Schedule. A statutory board is constituted under Section 5 to administer the affairs of the Gurudwara in accordance with the enactment. The Board consists of seventeen members. Some of them are nominated by the government (see clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (1) of Section 6). Some members are nominated by specific bodies: under clause (iv), one member is nominated by Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee from among the Sikhs of State of Madhya Pradesh; under clause (v) three members are nominated by the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee; under Clause (vii) one member is nominated by the Chief Khalsa Diwan of Amritsar and under clause (viii) four members are nominated by Suchkhand Hazuri Khalsa Diwan, Nanded. As regards the elected members, clause (vi) stipulates that two members shall be elected by and from among Sikh members of Parliament. Sub- Section (2) of Section 6 stipulates that the nomination and election of members under the sprovision “shall be made in such a manner and within such period as may be prescribed”. The expression ‘prescribed’ is defined by Section 2(e) to mean prescribed by rules made by the government under the Act and to include the bye- laws made by the Board under the statute. The expression ‘Board’ is defined in Section 2(a) to mean the Board which is constituted under the provisions of Chapter II. Thus, the modalities for nomination and election can be prescribed by the rules made by the government under the Act and in the bye-laws framed by the Board. Sub-Section (3) of Section
6 provides that if the members mentioned in clauses (iv) and
(vii) are not nominated or elected within the prescribed period, the government may specify the period within which the exercise has to be completed. If the process is not completed within the period so stipulated, the Government is empowered to nominate a person or persons to fill the vacancy. Significantly, the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 6 do not apply to the nomination to be made under clause (viii) of sub-Section (1) of Section 6. In other words, the exclusive statutory authority for making the nomination of four members under Section 6(1)(viii) is vested in the Sachkhand Hazuri Khalsa Diwan, Nanded. Section 6(1)(viii) clearly indicates that it is the Diwan alone which has the power to make a nomination of four members. The State Government cannot assume that power to itself. That the authority of the Diwan is exclusive is evident from the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 6. The Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Rules 1958 contain a provision for the nomination of members under clauses (iv), (v),
(vii) and (viii) of Section 6 (1). [Paras 23-25][366-D-H; 367-A-E]
1.3 The provisions contained in Rule 6 indicate that for the purpose of fulfilling the statutory requirement of a nomination, the State Government is to make a request in writing, inter alia, to the Diwan under Clause (viii). The power to make a nomination under Section 6(1)(viii) is vested in the Sachkhand Hazuri Khalsa Diwan, Nanded. The statute does not expressly define the expression “Diwan”. The Diwan was constituted as a society initially in 1350 Fasli. It was registered as a public trust under the MPT Act in 1982. The expression ‘Diwan’ needs elaboration. The Memorandum of Association refers to the Khalsa Diwan General Committee which comprises “of all members of the Diwan”. They alone are entitled to vote. The Working Committee is a smaller body consisting of 28 members which is elected for a duration of two years on each occasion. The authority to nominate four representatives under Section 6(1)(viii) of the Nanded Act 1956 is entrusted to the Diwan. The Diwan consists of the collective body of all members who together are entitled to vote under the Memorandum of Association. Together they constitute the Diwan. Neither the President individually nor any office bearer can be equated with the Diwan. The authority to nominate four members to the Board under Section 6(1)(viii) is not entrusted to an office bearer of the Working Committee or for that matter to the Working Committee. Evidently, conflicts between the rival factions have spilled over into the process of making nominations. The State Government was confronted with conflicting claims. It wrote to the Charity Commissioner seeking some light on the issue and after receiving a communication that Gurucharan Singh was the President, proceeded to issue a notification drawing four members from out of the rival claims that were made by the conflicting factions. The High Court was justified in disapproving of the process that was followed by the State Government but for the simple reason that the nominations were not made by the Diwan. Multiple claims were made in the letters submitted to the State Government. The 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. The 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. [Paras 26-28][368A-E, F-H; 369-A-C]
1.4 In authorising the Sachkhand Hazuri Khalsa Diwan, Nanded to nominate four members, Section 6(1)(viii) entrusts that authority to the collective body of members of the Diwan which is entitled to select the four individuals to be nominated to the statutory Board. This process must be initiated forthwith and concluded within a period of three months from the date of this judgment. The change reports - Inquiry Applications Nos. 44 of 2019 and 114 of 2019 - must be enquired into by the Assistant Charity Commissioner expeditiously and the inquiry shall be concluded within a period of three months from the date of this judgment. The notification dated 21 June 2019 is held to be invalid and the conclusion of the High Court is upheld. Hence, the submission to permit the members who were notified on 21 June 2019 to continue to function as an interim arrangement cannot be accepted. The conclusion of the High Court that the notification issued by the State Government on 21 June 2019 was contrary to the provisions of Section 6 (1) (viii) of the Nanded Act 1956 is affirmed. Directions issued. [Paras 29-32][369-C-E; 370-A-C]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.