9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the election held on 19.12.2005 for electing members of the Executive Board of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee (DSGMC). 2. Maintainability of the writ petition in light of the alternative remedy provided by the Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act. 3. Non-joinder of necessary parties in the writ petition. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Election Held on 19.12.2005: The principal issue raised was the validity of the election held on 19.12.2005 for the Executive Board of DSGMC. The learned single Judge countermanded the election, citing confusion created by the contradictory stands taken by the President and the General Secretary regarding the date of the election. However, the Division Bench of the High Court found that there was no confusion about the date of the meeting, as 35 out of 50 members participated and elected the office bearers with more than a 2/3rd majority. The Supreme Court noted that the dispute was factual, concerning whether some members could not participate due to the alleged confusion. The Court emphasized that such factual disputes are more appropriately resolved through an election petition, where parties can lead oral evidence. 2. Maintainability of the Writ Petition: The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that where a statute provides a specific remedy for election disputes, that remedy must be availed of, and recourse cannot be taken to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court cited various precedents, including N.P. Ponnuswami vs. The Returning Officer and Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, emphasizing that election disputes should be resolved through the statutory mechanism provided, which in this case was an election petition under Section 31 of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act. The Court concluded that the writ petitions were not maintainable as the appropriate remedy was an election petition. 3. Non-joinder of Necessary Parties: The respondents argued that the newly elected office bearers of the Executive Board, who had taken charge and were functioning, were not made parties to the writ petitions. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that no relief could be granted without impleading the newly elected office bearers, as their rights would be adversely affected. The Court cited Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, and Prabodh Verma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, emphasizing that a writ petition should not be heard and disposed of without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents. The non-impleadment of necessary parties was fatal to the writ petitions, and on this ground alone, they were liable to be dismissed. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the writ petitions were not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy through an election petition and the non-joinder of necessary parties. The Court emphasized the importance of following the statutory remedy provided for election disputes and the necessity of including all affected parties in the proceedings.
|
