KRISHNA NAND SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER VARANASI DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Krishna Nand Singh is the Managing Trustee of Swami Sukhdeo Nand Ashram Trust (hereinafter to be referred as the Trust). He has filed this petition for quashing of the Notification No. 312/XXXVI-2-83- 51-T-77 dated 6-12-1983, contained in Annexure 1-A and for quashing of the order of Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi dated 27-12-86, contained in Annexure-2 and for quashing of the order of respondent no. 3 dated 14-3-87, contained in Annexure-4. It is also prayed that the proceedings consequent thereupon pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Duddhi, District Mirzapur, may also be quashed.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are that the Trust is situated in the District Mirzapur. District Mirzapur lies within the jurisdiction of respondent no. 2 Sri D. S Bagga, Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi. Sri Bagga was appointed as Commissioner under the U. P. Hindu Public Religious Institutions (Prevention of Dissipation of Properties) Act, 1962 ; (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). This appointment was made on 6th December, 1983 by the Government in exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act and in supersession of all previous Notifications issued in this behalf. THE Commissioners were appointed for purposes of the said Act for the Area over which they exercise jurisdiction as Divisional Commissioners. THE notification is attached as annexure 1/A to the petition. THE Commissioner on 27-12-1986, passed an order appointing the Sub-Divisional Officer, Duddhi, District Mirzapur (respondent no. 3) as Investigation Officer. THE petitioner, in fact, was aggrieved by this order and in order to challenge the validity of this order investigations were made by him and it then transpired that Sri D. S. Bagga, respondent no. 2, was professing Sikh religion and hence was not qualified for being appointed as Commissioner under the Act and thus the notification appointing him issued on 6-12-1983 has also been challenged.

(3.) LEARNED counsel maintained that since respondent no. 2 was professing ' Sikh religion ' he was not qualified for being appointed as Commissioner under the Act. We do not find ourselves in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner; The Act defines " Hindu " and the said definition provided therein is as under :-