KARNAIL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) India, which is Union of States, territories whereof are the territories of the States and Union Territories or such other territories as may be acquired, as specified in the First Schedule, can, by virtue of Article 3 of the Constitution of India, have new States by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States, by law to be made by Parliament. State of Punjab diminished in its area first by virtue of partition of the country in the year 1947, i.e., prior to November 26, 1949 when people of India adopted and gave to themselves the Constitution. The area of State of Punjab then increased by virtue of States Reorganisation Act, 1956 when Pepsu was merged in Punjab. However, it once again got reduced in area when Government of India decided, in principle, on March 21, 1966 to reorganise the existing State of Punjab on linguistic basis. The existing State of Punjab was reorganised in four parts, State of Punjab, State of Haryana, Union Territory, Chandigarh and the transferred territories to the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh, all four parts being then known as consequential States. Necessary, supplementary, incidental and consequential provisions, in relation to such reorganisation were made by an Act known as Punjab Reorganisation Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1966). Every endeavour, it appears, was made to provide and cater for all situations that may necessitate smooth reorganisation by virtue of Act of 1966 but, as is inherent, some complex difficulties in this mammoth task were bound to arise. One such difficulty in the field of operation of existing laws pertains to an Act known as The Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1925'). Considering such difficulties not only to be intricate in nature but also of great importance, a Full Bench of three Judges was constituted in 1970 (Shiromani Gurdwaras Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar and Ors. v. Lachhman Singh Gill and Ors., 1970 AIR(P&H) 40). The Division Bench, seized of the matter in hand, considering it to be of great importance, which may also need reconsideration of the Full Bench even if not on all points considered by the earlier Full Bench of three Judges, has referred it to the Hon'ble Chief Justice to constitute a Bench larger than three Judges, although not specifically mentioning therein that the earlier Full Bench of three Judges may need reconsideration and that is how this matter is before us, a bench of five Judges constituted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice.

(2.) Before we may deal with the issues raised in this case, that have been framed by the Division Bench while referring this case to a larger Bench, it will be appropriate to give facts of this case, even though in brevity as also, as to how precisely the matter has come up before a Full Bench of five Judges. Before we may take that exercise in hand, we would like to mention here that the main pleadings and the primary contentions of learned Counsel for the (parties, have since been noted in the reference order itself but we are taking this exercise in hand as otherwise the reference order might have to be read as a part of this order.

(3.) Kashmir Singh, Petitioner herein, was appointed as a Member of the Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission (for short 'Commission') under the provisions of the Act of 1925,--vide notification dated July 4,1989. It is his case that after his appointment as member of the Commission, he was elected as President of the Commission and since then he has been continuously working as Member/President of the said Commission. S. Dara Singh and S. Raghbir Singh were also appointed as Members of the Commission which consists of three members. State of Punjab issued notification, dated January 6,1999,-- vide which Petitioner and two other members were removed and S. Man Mohan Singh, S. Amrik Singh and S. Ajwant Singh Mann were so appointed. Petitioner challenged this notification by this writ petition, wherein notice of motion was issued and same was ordered to be listed for hearing on January 28, 1999. During the pendency of the writ petition itself, the State Government issued two more notifications, dated January 12, 1999. By virtue of first order, notification, dated January 6, 1999 was rescinded and by virtue of second order, Punjab Government reconstituted the Commission. Net effect of these two orders, as per stand of the Petitioner, is that the existing members have been removed and three new members have been appointed. These two orders passed during the pendency of the writ petition, necessitated its amendment to challenge the same which are Annexures P4 and P5. By making mention of the relevant provisions of the Act of 1925, to which we shall advert later, it has been primarily pleaded and so canvassed by Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Commission is not constituted with the constitution of the Sikh Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') each time. The tenure of the board may be for five years as mentioned in the Act itself or till the new elections are held but there is no time fixed for the tenure of the members of the Commission. Whenever a vacancy is caused in the Commission, the State Government has to fill up the said existing vacancy out of the panel of seven members lying with it already recommended by the Board. The other question that has been adverted to is with regard to power of the State Government to appoint or remove a member. It is the case of Petitioner that the State Government has no power to appoint or remove any member of the Commission. The ancillary question attached to the second one, as mentioned above, would be that if the power to appoint and remove a member of the Commissioner lies with the Central Government, can the same be delegated to the State of Punjab.