GURDIT SINGH AULAKH (DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

Citation: [1975] 1 S.C.R. 737 · Decided: 16-08-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

·' 
>. 
l 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
f 
G 
GURDIT SINGH AULAKH (DECEASED) 
THROUGH L.RS 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS 
August 16, 1974 
[A. N. RAY, C. J. AND K. K. MATHEW, J.] 
737 
Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, Sec. 12(1) and (5)-Constitution of Tribunal-Re111orat' 
nf nzember-Consequent dissolution and re-constitution-Validity of notification 
Held, 
the 
statutory require1nent and practical expediency justified the action. 
By an order dated Septe·mber 10, 1965, A was removed from Membership of the 
Sikh Gurdwaras Tribunal and K was appointed to the vacancy so created. On 
October 18, 1966, the order of removal was quashed by the High Court. The 
en5uing special leave petition was rejected by this Court. By two separate noti-
fications dated October 22, 1966, the Tribunal was respectively dissolved and re--
constituted with K as a member. A, who challenged by a writ petition the noti- · 
fication of dissolution, died on July 18, 1969. His legal representatives confined 
their claim to the emolun1ents alleged to be due to him. The High Court dismissed 
the petition. On appeal, by certificate, to this Court, the appellants contended that 
the notification dissolving the Tribunal was issued for a collateral puTJJoSe and by 
a person who had no authority to do. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : (i) Under Sec. 12(5) of the Act, it was not competent for the Govern--
ment to remove a member once appointed except on the grounds specified therein· 
and the fact that the High Court declared that the removal of A from the member-
ship of the Tribunal was bad would not have warranted the removal of K from 
the membership of the Tribunal under that provision. S. 12(5) provides for aU. 
cases of removal of a member once appointed and since the removal of K would not 
have been justified on any of the grounds mentioned in that section, the State·· 
Government could not have removed him from the membership and, therefore, an 
impossible situation \Vas created which justified the dissolution of the Tribunal 
under S. 12(1). From the fact that the judgment of the High Court declared that 
the 1emoval of A was bad in law, it would not follow that the appointment of Kin 
the vacancy created by the removal of A was void. K's appointment remained 
unchallenged. He was functioning as a member of the Tribunal and was partici-
pating in the decision of cases. The provisions of s. 12(1) made it essential that on 
removal of A, there should be an appointment to the vacancy as the business of the 
Tribunal could not have been carried on without filling the vacancy created by the 
removal. On the ground of practical expediency also the appointment of K was 
not void or non est in the eye of law. · Therefore, the dissolution of the Tribunal' 
was not for a collateral purpose. 
[739A-740A1 
(ii) The notification dissolving the Tribunal did not abolish any public office 
of the description specified in sub-rule (l)(xxii) of R. 28 of the Rules of Business 
of the Government of Punjab, 1953. The Tribunal was not abolished. 
ft was 
only re-constitUted. Abolition means "to destroy, extinguish, abrogate or anni- -
hilate". The Secretary, Home Department was competent to issue the notification. 
[740H-74!A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2062 of 1970. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated the 23rd April, 1970· 
of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No. 2788 of 1966. 
H 
R.K. Garg, S.C. Agarwal, S.S. Bhatnagar and A.K. Gupta, for· 
the appellants. 
O.P. Shal'lna,_ for respondents nos. 1-4. 
738 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1975) 1 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MATHEW J. The Governor of Punjab constituted the Sikh Gurd-
·waras Tribunal with effect from April l, 1962 and· one Gurdit Singh 
Aulakh (•Aulakh' for short) was appointed as a member of the Tri-
·bunal. He was removed from the membership by an order dated 
September 10, 1965 and one Shri S.S. Kahta ('Kahla' for short) was 
appointed to the vacancy so created. Aulakh challenged the validity 
of his removal in a writ petition filed before the High Court of Punjab. 
!hat petition was ultimately allowed inletters patent appeal and the 
·order removing Aulakh from the membership of the Tribunal was 
-quashed. That was on October 18, 1966. An application for leave 
10 appeal to this Court against the decision of the Letters Patent Bench 
·was r~jected. So also an application before this Court for special leave 
to appeal. Therefore, a notification was issued on O

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.