AVTAR SINGH HIT versus DELHI SIKH GURDWARA MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE AND ORS

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 316 · Decided: 18-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
AVTAR SINGH HIT 
V. 
DELHI SIKH GURDWARA MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE AND ORS 
OCTOBER 18, 2006 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, G.P. MATHUR AND 
R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Election Laws: 
Delhi Sikh Gurudwaras Act, I971-Sections 3I and 33-Dispute 
regarding confusion in date fvced for holding election of the office bearers of 
Executive Board of the Committee-Consequently some members could not 
participate in the election-Validity of election challenged, by way of writ 
petition-Correctness of-Held: Dispute being purely factual in nature, can 
D be resolved by examination of oral evidence-Proper remedy would be election 
petition under section 31-No exceptional or extraordinary circumstances 
disclosed to justifY recourse under Article 226-Also writ petition filed wilhout 
impleading the newly elected office bearers of the Executive Board as necessary 
parties-Thus, writ petition not maintainable-Constitution of India, 1950-
Article 226. 
E 
Constitution of India, I 950-Article 226-Writ petition-Maintainability, 
when necessary parties not impleaded-Held: Writ petition not maintainable. 
P was elected as the President and R was elected as the Secretary of 
the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee for the year 2004-06. 
F The term of the Executive Board of the Committee expired but P did not 
hold a meeting of the Committee for electing the new members of the 
Executive Board. Members of the Committee made representation to the 
Secretary for holding fresh elections of the Executive Board for the year 
2005-06. Election was held on 19.12.2005 and new office bearers of the 
G Executive Board of the Committee were elected for the year 2005-2006. 
H 
The constitution of the new executive Board for the year 2005-06 was 
announced. Thereafter, appellant filed writ petitions challenging the 
election held on· 19.12.2005 for electing the members of the Executive 
Board of the Committee on the ground that the President and the 
316 
A VTAR SINGH HIT 1·. DELHI SIKH GURDWARA MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 
3 J 7 
Senetary took a contradictory stand regarding the date of the meeting A 
in which the new office bearers of the Executive Board had to be elected 
and created confusion thereby, as a result he could not participate in the 
elections though he was keen to contest for the election for the office of 
the President. Gurdwara Management Committee and its President 
contended that since the office bearers of the newly elected Executive B 
Board who had been functioning since 19.12.2005 were not impleaded as 
party to the writ petition, and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy 
of filing an election petition under section 31 of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras 
Act, 1971, writ petitions were not maintainable. Single Judge of High 
Court countermanded and set aside the election held on 19.12.2005 of the 
members of Executive Board and directed that fresh elections be held. C 
Division Bench of High Court set aside the order of the Single Judge. 
Without going into the issue regarding the effect of the non-joinder of the 
newly elected members it expressed a prima facie view that its effect is 
not fatal and that despite the alternative remedy of election petition being 
available, writ petitions were maintainable. Hence the present appeals. 
D 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Where elections are conducted in accordance with the 
provisions of a statute and the statute also provides a remedy of settlement 
of election disputes by filing an election petition before a tribunal, it is E 
that remedy alone which should be availed of and recourse cannot be taken 
to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. (327-H; 328-A( 
1.2. The pleadings of the parties and also the material placed in the 
writ petition clearly show that the dispute raised as to whether some 
confusion had been created regarding the date fixed for holding of the F 
meeting of the Committee for electing the office bearers of the Executive 
Board, as a result of which some members of the Committee could not 
participate in the meeting was purely factual in nature. The dispute could 
more appropriately be resolved by examination of oral evidence to be led 
by the parties. Appellant claimed that on account of the confusion in dates G 
he could not attend the meeting though he was very keen to participate 
in the meeting and contest for the office of the President of the Executive 
Board. In view of the nature of the dispute raised the proper remedy for 
the pet
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.