MEWA SINGH AND OTHERS versus SHIROMANI GURDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 468 · Decided: 10-12-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MEWA SINGH AND OTHERS 
v. 
SHIROMANI GURDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE 
DECEMBER 10, 1998 
B 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 226 & 227-Wril jurisdiction-
Scope of-Siromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) constituted 
under the provisions of Sikh Gurdwara Act, dismissed its employees-
C Dismissal challenged in the tt•rit petition before the High Court-Dismissal 
on the ground that alternate remedy available under Section 142 of the 
Act-Section 142 of the Act provides that the right of interested persons to 
complain to the Commission in respect of misfeasance etc. but does not 
provide an alternate remedy to an employee of SGPC who has been dismissed 
D or who has been terminated from the services-Held, a creation of statute, 
if acts in violation of the statute, will be amenable to the writ jurisdiction 
of the High Court-High Court erred in reji1sing to grant relief to appellants 
and asking them to avail alternative remedy under Section 142 of the Ac/-
Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925-Sections ./2, 64, 69, 132, 142-Service Law-
Dismissal-Judicial review. 
E 
Appellants were employees of Siromani Gurdwara Prabandhak 
Committee (SPGC), a body constituted under the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925. 
They were dismissed from service and the same was challenged before the 
High Court_ in a writ petition. High Court, however refused to grant any 
F relief to the appellant and they were told to seek alternate remedy under 
Section 142 of the Act ignoring the earlier decision of the High Court in 
a similar matter in Ajaib Singh*, wherein the jurisdiction of the writ court 
was upheld. Section 142 of the Act in fact provided right of the complain to 
the Judicial Commission in respect of misfeasance etc. and did not provide 
an alternate remedy to an employee of SGPC who had been dismissed or 
G whose services had been terminated. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Co11rt 
HELD: I.I. A mere reading of various provisions of the Sikh Gurdwara 
H Act and Rules unmistakably show that SGPC is creation of the statute and 
468 
MEWA SINGH v. S.G.P.C. [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 
469 
Service Rules framed by it in exercise of its statutory power have force of A 
law. Any violation of the provision of the Act and the Rules will certainly 
make SGPC amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under 
Article 226 of the Constitution. There is no basis for SGPC to contend that 
no writ can be issued against it even if its action is contrary to the provision 
of law and the Rules framed thereunder. SGPC is a creation of the statute. 
It has to act within the four corners of the law constituting it and the rules 
framed by it under the powers conferred upon it under the Act.[477-B-C-DJ 
Dwarkanath v. ITO, 11965] 3 SCR 536, relied on. 
B 
1.2. Section 142 of the Act does not provide any alternate remedy to C 
an employee of the SGPC, who has been dismissed or whose services have 
been terminated. Section 142 does not cover any such type of case. Inspite 
of clear statement of law laid down by the earlier Bench of the High Court, 
the writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by asking the appellants 
to seek alternate remedy under Section 142 of the Act. The High Court was 
unnecssarily swayed by irrelevant consideration while interpreting statutory D 
provisions. The impugned judgment of the High Court does not stand any 
further scrutiny and is liable to be set aside. Orders of the SGPC dismissing 
the appellants are set aside. They shall stand reinstated with all consequential 
relief. [477-F; 478-A-CI 
Ajaib Singh v. The Shiromani Gurdwara 
Prabandhak Committee, E 
(CWP No. 7236 of 1996 of Punjab & Haryana High Court), decided on 3-
10-1996, approved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6297 of 
1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.4.98 of the Punjab & Haryana 
High Court in C.W.P. No. 11735of1997. 
Vanita Spara Kataria, (A.S. Chahil) for Ms. S. Janani, for the Appellants. 
F 
Hardev Singh and Ms. Madhu Moolchandani for the Respondent. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D.P. WADHWA, J. Leave granted. 
There are 4 appellants. All are employees of the respondent Shiromani H 
470 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC), a body constituted under the Sikh 
Gurdwara Act, 1925 (for short, the 'Act'). They were, however, dismissed from 
service by order dated January 13, 1996. They approached the Punjab and 
Haryana Hig
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.