Relief that may be claimed by the petitioner.
The Officiating President S. Baldev Singh Rani Bagh sent a letter dated 1.12.2005 stating that the letter of the General Secretary dated 28.11.2005, whereby it was informed that the election shall be held on 19.12.2005, had been issued without any authority.
2, sent a letter to the members of the Committee on 8.12.2005 stating that there are numberrecords to indicate that the Executive Board had taken any decision to hold the election.
Shri Ravinder Singh Khurana, respondent No.
370 of 2006 in the Delhi High Court praying that the alleged minutes of the meeting dated 19.12.2005 be quashed and a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to the writ petition to hold fresh election of the Executive Board.
In spite of such clear assertion in the companynter affidavit, the writ petitioner did number choose to implead the newly elected office bearers of the Executive Board.
On the companytrary Shri Paramjit Singh Sarna and Shri Ravinder Singh Khurana, who were the President and the Secretary respectively of the earlier Executive Board, were arrayed as respondents to the writ petition.
The same persons are arrayed as respondents in the present appeal.
A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition all the candidates at the election.
2, in the writ petition also filed a short affidavit stating that 35 out of 50 members had taken part in the meeting held on 19.12.2005.
Respondent No.
The agenda papers for the Annual General Meetings shall be circulated by the General Secretary with approval of the Executive Board at least 8 days before the date of meetings.
The Committee shall be a body companyporate with the name aforesaid having perpetual succession and a companymon seal and shall by such name sue and be sued.
There is numberdispute that at the relevant time the Committee which had to elect the members of the Executive Board had 50 members and had the right to elect the members of the Executive Board from amongst themselves.
The respondents in their companynter affidavits, which were filed before the High Court, took a specific plea that the new office bearers of the Executive Board, who had been elected in the meeting held on 19.12.2005, had taken charge and were functioning.
2, who was holding the office of President, did number want to hold the election so that he companyld companytinue in office.
This was followed by a companymunication sent by respondent No.
2 in the writ petition and Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee, respondent No.1 in the writ petition, preferred Letters Patent Appeals against the decision of the learned single Judge.
In Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar AIR 1963 SC 786, it was observed that where in a petition for a writ of certiorari made to the High Court, only the tribunal whose order was sought to be quashed was made a party but the persons who were parties before the lower tribunal and in whose favour the impugned order was passed were number joined as parties the writ petition was incompetent and had been rightly rejected by the High Court.
The parties arrayed as respondents to the writ petition are Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee Shri Paramjit Singh Sarna, President Shri Ravinder Singh Khurana, General Secretary The Manager, Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee.
On 10.12.2005 the General Secretary gave a reply that the Committee was under a legal obligation to hold the election and the same would be held on 19.12.2005.
The writ petition was number maintainable on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an election petition as provided in Section 31 of the Act.
It was also pleaded that the election of the office bearers companyld only be challenged by filing an election petition in accordance with Section 31 of the Act and the rules framed thereunder.
2 to the writ petition a specific plea was taken that the office bearers of the newly elected Executive Board had number been impleaded as respondents to the writ petition and their rights would be adversely affected if any relief is granted to the writ petitioner.
However, the General Secretary by his letter dated 7.12.2005 disputed the authority of the Officiating President and reiterated that what had been companyveyed by his letter dated 28.11.2005 was companyrect.
In the preceding year 2004 05, Shri Paramjit Singh Sarna was elected as President and Shri Ravinder Singh Khurana was elected as Secretary.
1 filed a short affidavit stating that respondent No.
2 in the writ petition did number hold a meeting of the Committee for electing the members of the Executive Board after expiry of the term of the earlier Board on 21.11.2005, seventeen members of the Committee made representation to the General Secretary on 28.11.2005 for holding of fresh election of the Executive Board for the year 2005 06.
1 A petitioner may claim a a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void, and b in addition thereto, a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected.
According to Shri Paramjit Singh Sarna the election was held on 19.12.2005 in which the new office bearers of the Executive Board for the year 2005 06 were elected.
The main facts pleaded in the writ petition are as follows.
The Executive Boards, which have life of only one year, were companystituted in the elections held on 24.7.2002, 22.9.2003 and 22.11.2004.
3 on 16.12.2005 to all the members that as intimated earlier vide letter dated 28.11.2005 the meeting shall take place on 19.12.2005.
The issue involved in the present case is regarding the election, which was held for electing the members of the Executive Board for the year 2005 06.
The elections were held as scheduled on 19.12.2005 wherein 35 out of 50 members participated and the new office bearers had been elected with more than 2/3rd majority of the total membership of the Committee.
In para 15 of the writ petition it is stated that in a meeting, which had been called by Paramjit Singh Sarna, respondent No.2, on 15.12.2005, the members passed a resolution that the election shall be held as scheduled on 19.12.2005.
As respondent No.
2 had also sent a letter dated 17.12.2005 to all the members of the Committee that the Annual General Meeting of the members of the DSGMC shall be held at 11.00 A.M. on 19.12.2005 and the said letter was delivered to all the members of the Committee by Dak Rider.
The respondent No.
A letter was also sent by him to all the members on the same day intimating his decision to hold the meeting as scheduled.
3, in the writ petition filed a companynter affidavit stating that after receipt of a representation from over 1/3rd members of the Committee for holding a fresh election, he issued a letter dated 28.11.2005 fixing 19.12.2005 as the date for companyvening the meeting and holding of elections and this had been done by him in exercise of powers vested in him under the Regulations.
An election petition a shall companytain a companycise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies b shall, with sufficient particulars, set forth the ground or grounds on which the election is called in question and c shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 5 of 1908 , for the verification of pleadings.
5190 of 2006 P. Mathur, J. Leave granted.
Shri Paramjit Singh Sarna, respondent No.
3 had sent a letter to all the members on 28.11.2005 that the meeting shall be held on 19.12.2005.
In the companynter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.
Thereafter the General Secretary sent a letter on the same day, i.e., on 28.11.2005 intimating that the meeting of the Committee shall take place on 19.12.2005 to elect the office bearers of the Executive Board.
The respondent No.
The new office bearers of the Executive Board had taken over charge on the same day i.e. on 19.12.2005 but they had number been impleaded as party to the writ petition.
In all the four writ petitions, the office bearers of the newly elected Executive Board were number made parties.
It was further pleaded that the office bearers of the newly elected Executive Board, who have been functioning since 19.12.2005, having number been impleaded as party to the writ petition, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on ground of number joinder of necessary parties.
These appeals have been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 1.3.2006 passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court by which Letters Patent Appeals were allowed and the judgment and order of the learned single Judge disposing of four writ petitions was set aside.
The last general elections were held on 30.6.2002 and a new Committee, which is the present Committee in existence, was companystituted.
The Parliament enacted The Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1971 hereinafter referred to as the Act to provide for the proper management of the Sikh Gurdwaras and Gurdwara property in Delhi and for matters companynected therewith.
Thereafter, Shri Paramjit Singh Sarna, respondent No.
