Summary
The authority to nominate four members to the statutory Gurudwara Board belonged to the Sachkhand Hazuri Khalsa Diwan’s entire voting membership, rather than its President, office bearers, Working Committee or the State Government. The State’s notification selecting nominees from conflicting factional claims was invalid. The Court affirmed its quashing and directed completion of the pending change-report inquiries and a lawful nomination process within three months, with the Assistant Charity Commissioner supervising the meeting and determining eligible voters.
Issues
- Who could nominate the Diwan’s four representatives under Section 6(1)(viii).
- Whether the State could resolve competing factional nominations by selecting members itself.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(e) and 6, Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Sachkhand Shri Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib Act, 1956Construed the Diwan’s exclusive nomination power, the limited governmental default power and the prescribed modalities for nomination. (¶¶ 3, 7, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 32)
- Rule 6, Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Sachkhand Shri Hazuri Apchalnagar Sahib Rules, 1958Required the State to request nominations from the designated bodies; did not transfer the Diwan’s nomination power to the State. (¶¶ 25, 26, 28)
Held
- The registered Diwan public trust and the statutory Gurudwara Board were distinct bodies. Pending factual disputes over rival office bearers and membership were for the Assistant Charity Commissioner’s inquiries rather than adjudication in these appeals. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 30)
- Section 6(1)(viii) entrusted nomination to the Diwan’s collective body of voting members. Neither individual office bearers nor the Working Committee could be equated with that body; a contrary past practice could not override the statute. (¶¶ 24, 27, 28, 29)
- Section 6(3)’s governmental power to fill specified unfilled nominations did not extend to clause (viii). The State could not choose four members from competing factional letters and assume the Diwan’s exclusive statutory authority. Its notification was invalid and the affected members could not continue as an interim arrangement. (¶¶ 24, 28, 31, 32)
- The two pending change-report inquiries and the nomination process were to conclude within three months. The Assistant Charity Commissioner was to determine eligible voting members, fix and observe the Diwan meeting, adopt suitable modalities including a virtual meeting, and seek consequential directions from the Aurangabad Bench if needed. (¶¶ 29, 30, 32, 33, 34)
Result
Appeals disposed of, affirming the invalidity of the State notification dated 21 June 2019 and issuing time-bound inquiry and nomination directions. Interim continuation of the invalidly notified members refused. No order as to costs; pending applications disposed of.