KAWALINDER SINGH THEKEDAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall also dispose of connected writ petition Nos. 6153 of 2006 (Onkar Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, 7885 of 2006 (Avtar Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others), 7887 of 2006 (Didar Singh Nalvi and others v. State of Haryana and others) and 7901 of 2006 (Jagdish Singh Jhinda and others v. State of Haryana and others), as they involve a common question of law and somewhat similar facts with identical prayer for reliefs.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has sought to challenge the provisions of Section 87(1)(b) of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (for short 'the Act') on the ground that power of nomination contained therein suffers from excessive delegation inasmuch as the provisions thereof are totally unguided and arbitrary. For ready reference, the provisions of Section 87 of the Act are reproduced hereunder :-

(3.) LEARNED senior counsel further submitted that the position of the President of SGPC is akin to that of the Pope in Christianity, therefore, his authority to nominate members of the Committee should not be casually questioned. Issues like election and nomination to various bodies and committees under the Act are more like an ecclesiastical question than legal and political ones. Learned senior counsel also contended that the resolution (Annexure P-1) and the letter of the Secretary, SGPC (Annexure P-2), whereunder the petitioners are claiming right to be nominated, are not the valid documents. Rather, Annexure P-2 is only a letter inadvertently addressed by the Secretary of the SGPC to the members of SGPC without the consent of the Committee. He also referred to para Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the reply on affidavit sworn by the President, the SGPC (respondent No. 3). For ready reference, the said paras are reproduced as under :-