Sri Guru Granth Sahib Chhoti Lami Dhab v. State of Punjab

Mr.Manohar Lal, Addl.A.G., Punjab for the respondents no.1 to 4. Mr.A.S.Jattana, Advocate for the respondent no.5. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA.J (Oral) CM No.14767 of 2007 Prayer in this application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC is to bring the applicant on record as Mahant Darbara Singh @ Darbara Nand, has passed away. Counsel for the applicant submits that upon the demise of Mahant Darbara Singh, the applicant Sikandar Dass @ Sikandar Ji Chela of Mahant Darbara Singh @ Darbara Nand has been appointed as the Mahant of the Dera on 17.08.2007 and is, therefore, entitled to represent the petitioner as its duly appointed Mahant. Counsel for respondent no.5, Committee, submits that proceedings dated 17.08.2007 are a fraud and as no such proceedings ever took place. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the proceedings dated 17.08.2007, appended with the application as Annexure A-2. A CWP No. 16202 of 2005 (O&M) -2- perusal of the proceedings dated 17.08.2007, appears to suggest that Sikandar Dass has been appointed as the Mahant by the bekh. As a consequence, the application is allowed and Mahant Sikandar Dass is allowed to represent the petitioner. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not be construed to express an opinion on the validity of the applicant's appointment as the Mahant. CWP No.16202 of 2005 Prayer in this petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 13.09.2005, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda, directing correction of the revenue record by adding the word 'Dera' before the name of the petitioner and handing over the management and control of the 'Dera' and its properties to a managing committee, arrayed in the writ petition as respondent no.5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a religious institution. The Deputy Commissioner, has no administrative or legal control over the petitioner, and therefore, had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order handing over management and control of the institution to a so called managing committee. It is further submitted that, a person aggrieved by the conduct of a Mahant or by the affairs of a charitable, religious institution, may approach a civil Court by filing a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure but in no circumstance, can a party approach a Deputy Commissioner for redressal of such a grievance. The Deputy Commissioner, is neither a civil Court nor an authority, vested with statutory power to interfere with the affairs of a private religious institution. It is prayed that in view of this illegal and erroneous assumption of jurisdiction by the Deputy Commissioner, the CWP No. 16202 of 2005 (O&M) -3- order dated 13.09.2005 should be set aside. It is further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, has no jurisdiction to direct revenue officers to correct the entry in the revenue record as there is no error. The name of the petitioner has already been settled in RSA No.2379 of 1982 titled as Jai Singh Versus Shri Guru Granth Sahib, Chhoti and Lambi Dhab and others, decided on 29.08.1989. Counsel for the State of Punjab on the other hand, submits that the Deputy Commissioner, received a complaint from the Tehsildar, Rampura Phul about mismanagement of the properties of the petitioner. After a due and diligent consideration of the material produced before him, the Deputy Commissioner, directed, in public interest, that management and control of the institution be handed over to the managing committee, respondent no.5. It is further submitted that as the petitioner is public institution, the Deputy Commissioner, had no option but to direct the handing over of its management to the managing committee, in public interest. Counsel for respondent no.5, managing committee, submits that as properties belonging to the Dera were being misused, the Lambardar reported the matter to the Tehsildar Rampura Phul, who forwarded the complaint with his report to the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner found as a matter of fact that the affairs of the petitioner were being mismanaged and therefore, directed management and control of the petitioner institution be handed over, in public interest, to a managing committee consisting of residents of the village. I have heard counsel for the parties, considered the arguments addressed by counsel for the parties, perused the order Annexure P-9 and have no hesitation in holding that the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda, had CWP No. 16202 of 2005 (O&M) -4- no jurisdiction whether in law or in so called public interest to pass the order Annexure P-9. The petitioner is admittedly a private religious/charitable institution. Its management and control is not subject to governmental control whether under any statute, executive instructions or other arrangement. The Deputy Commissioner, as the head of the civil administration may be entitled to order the police to maintain law and order but is not empowered, under any statute, executive instructions or arrangement to use the so called smokescreen of 'public interest' to interfere with the affairs of a religious/charitable institution. A fundamental principle that determines the validity of an administrative act is whether the act is founded upon a statutory empowerment i.e. whether the authority draws its power from any statutory enactment. The Deputy Commissioner is neither a civil court nor an authority empowered by any statute, with powers of superintendence or control over religious/charitable institutions. The Deputy Commissioner, therefore, had no authority to usurp jurisdiction and direct that management and control of the petitioner shall be handed over to a managing committee, consisting of residents of the village. A person aggrieved by any alleged breach by any express or constructive trust created for a public purpose of a charitable or religious nature etc. may file a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for removing any trustee, appointing a new trustee, vesting any property in a trustee, directing a trustee who has been removed to deliver possession of the trust property, direct accounts and inquiries etc. To a specific query as to the statutory enactment that confers power upon the Deputy Commissioner to pass such an order, counsel for respondents fairly concede CWP No. 16202 of 2005 (O&M) -5- that there is no such statutory provision. The Deputy Commissioner, usurped the jurisdiction of a Court under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, proceeded to hold an inquiry and thereafter passed an order handing over management and control of the petitioner institution to a managing committee, a course impermissible in law. Apart from the above error, the Deputy Commissioner, also directed correction of the revenue record by directing that the word 'Dera' be prefixed before the name of the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner, apparently, failed to peruse the judgment in RSA No.2379 of 1982 titled as Jai Singh Versus Shri Guru Granth Sahib, Chhoti and Lambi Dhab and others, wherein while deciding a dispute with respect to management and control of the petitioner, a finding was recorded that the institution is known as “Shri Guru Granth Sahib Chhoti and Lambi Dhab”. The Deputy Commissioner, therefore, had no jurisdiction to direct revenue officers in derogation to the finding recorded in the Regular Second Appeal, to prefix the word 'Dera' before the petitioner's name. The illegal, perverse and arbitrary assumption of jurisdiction by the Deputy Commissioner, must therefore, be rectified. The writ petition is allowed, the order dated

13.09.2005, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda, is set aside, leaving it open to respondent no.5 to seek its remedy in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

02.07.2010 shamsher [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE