The Patna High Court, while dismissing a petition filed against the nomination made by the District Judge, Patna to the Prabandhak Committee, which is managing the affairs of Sri Takhat Harimandir Ji, Patna Saheb observed that petitioners are concerned with the management of the religious place and it cannot be said that the community which has interest in the affairs of the institution and also the management of the same is either marginalized or downtrodden, requiring this Court to invoke the extraordinary discretionary remedy under Article 226.
Brief Facts:
The writ petition was filed against the nomination made by the District Judge, Patna to the Prabandhak Committee, which is managing the affairs of Sri Takhat Harimandir Ji, Patna Saheb, Patna City.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner contended that the District Judge, Patna ought not to have made the three nominations before the election was over, since it is dehors and ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution and by-laws governing the formation of the Committee and would lead to frustrating the democratic process of election of the committee members.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the writ petition is filed as a public interest petition and there is no reason to entertain the same. It was stated that the petitioners are concerned with the management of the religious place and it cannot be said that the community which has an interest in the affairs of the institution and also the management of the same is either marginalized or downtrodden, requiring this Court to invoke the extraordinary discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, bypassing the other remedies available.
Further, the court stated that the petitioner is a Sikh Collective (Sikh) which is not stated to be registered as a society or association and in that circumstance it cannot be deemed to be a legal entity. Further, the respondents impleaded are the three nominees and none from the community even in a representative capacity.
The court further referred to the constitution and the by-laws and stated that the nomination made by the District Judge is in his ex officio capacity and prima facie, there is nothing mandating the nomination to be done after the election. Further, none of the other existing committee members have been included in the present writ petition. It was stated that the remedy to any person aggrieved is the civil remedy wherein the community will also have to be represented.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: The Sikh Collective vs The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy
Case no.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.800 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Sachina
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. P.K. Shahi, Mr. Vikas Kumar, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Mr. Vipin Kumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
