PRITAM DASS MAHANT Vs. SHIROMANI GURDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th July, 1969 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

(2.) The dispute in this appeal centres around a religious institution in village Ramgarh (also known as Bhagtuana), tehsil Faridkot, district Bhatinda. This village was previously in the erstwhile Nabha State which merged with Pepsu and after the reorganisation of the States, became a part of the Punjab State in 1956. Sixty-five persons claiming to be members of the Sikh community moved an application before the State Government under S. 7 (1) of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as amended by the Amendment Act I of 1959, to have the institution declared to be a Sikh Gurdwara. The State Government notified the said application in the Punjab Gazette in terms of S. 7 (3) of the Act on 18th Oct., 1963. Upon this the appellant made an application under Ss. 8 and 10 of the Act claiming that the institution was not a Sikh Gurdwara but an Udasi institution known as Dera Bhai Bhagtu. This application was referred by the State Government to the Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal for adjudication. It was contended by the appellant that throughout its long history the institution has been an Udasi institution. This institution was not established for use by Sikhs for public worship, nor was it founded in the memory of a Sikh Martyr, saint or a historical person. It has never been used for public worship by the Sikhs. The institution was the Dera of Udasi Bhekh and the objects of worship are idols of Gola Sahib and of Baba Srichand, and the various samadhs.

(3.) The petition was resisted by the respondent Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee on three grounds. (1) that the appellant was not competent to move the petition under S. 7 of the Act because he was not a hereditary office holder, (2) that the provisions of the Act are not ultra vires the Constitution, and (3) that the institution in dispute was a Sikh Gurdwara.