SEWAK DASS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON February 10, 1960, 59 Sikh worshippers filed an application under Section 7(1) of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (hereinafter the Act) in relation to a religious institution known as Dera Bairooni in village Kot Duna, Tehsil Barnala, District Sangrur. The State Government thereafter issued a notification under Section 7(3) of the Act which was published on April 21, 1961. The notification was withdrawn (or cancelled) in 1964. The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (hereafter called the S.G.P.C.) then filed a suit under Section 28 of the Act for possession of the property of the same institution against Mahant Ram Dass in March, 1964, which was dismissed by District Judge, Barnala, - -vide order, dated May 15, 1964 (P.2) on the ground that Mahant Ram Dass was dead since before the filing of the suit. The S.G.P.C. then again filed another suit under Section 28 of the Act against Mahant Naranjan Dass which was dismissed by District Judge, Barnala, - -vide order, dated October 13, 1964 (P.4) as withdrawn. The State Government issued another notification under Section 7(3) of the Act on July 13, 1976, which was published on July 19, 1976. The Petitioner claiming to be a Mahant of the institution has assailed this notification under Section 7(3) of the Act in the present writ.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the notification under Section 7(3) of the Act issued and published in July, 1976 (hereinafter the Notification of 1976) is liable to be quashed on two grounds - -(1) the notice in terms 3 of Section 7(4) of the Act was served on the Petitioner on July 15, 1976, whereas the notification was published in gazette in terms of Sub -section (3) on July 19, 1976 and (2) the application of 59 Sikh worshippers under Section 7(1) of the Act was filed on February 10, 1960, whereas the impugned notification was issued and published in July, 1976. The impugned notification is highly belated.

(3.) THE notification under Section 7(3) was first issued in April, 1961, which was later on withdrawn in 1964. The S.G.P.C. then filed suits under Section 28 of the Act which were dismissed in 1964, as indicated above. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the words "as soon as may be" used in Section 7(3) are indicative that the State Government should publish a notification thereunder soon after the provisions contained in Sub -sections (1) and (2) of Section 7 have been complied with. In view of the fact that the first notification was issued in April, 1961, it stands proved that the compliance of Sub -sections (1) and (2) of Section 7 had been made earlier to that date. The impugned notification made in 1976 is highly belated and as such is liable to be quashed. This contention is also without merit. Under Sub -section (3) of Section 7 it is obligatory for the State Government to issue and publish a notification after the compliance of the provisions contained in Sub -sections (1) and (2) have been made. The State Government does not stand absolved from its responsibility to issue the notification under Section 7(3) if it has not done soon after the compliance under Sub -sections (1) and (2) of Section 7 has been made. The words "as soon as may be" are advisory or directory in nature. It is, therefore, clear that the impugned notification issued in July, 1976, cannot be quashed on the ground that it is belated.