Patna High Court
Sri Gyani Ranjit Singh @ Ranjit Singh vs Manmeet Singh on 5 February, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1423 of 2024
======================================================
Sri Gyani Ranjit Singh @ Ranjit Singh son of Late Yaswant Singh @ Jaswant
Singh At Present Jatthedar of Takht Sri Harimandir JI, Patna Saheb, Patna.
R/O house no-9 Sector 2 Gurugyan Vihar Model Town S.O Ludhiana Punjab
141002
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Manmeet Singh Son of Sardar Daljit Singh, a sangat member of Takht Sri
Harmandir Ji, R/o- Kalisthan Ganga Babu Ki Theki, P.O.- Begumpur, Patna
City, District. Patna-800008.
2. Prabandhak Committee, Takht Sri Harimandir Ji, Patna Saheb, Patna 800008
through its General Secretary.
3. Mahendra Pal Singh Dhillon, S/o late Bakshi Singh, R/o- Kachhi ghat, P.O.-
Chowk, Patna 800008, General Secretary of the Prabandhak Committee,
Takht Sri Harimindir Ji, Patna Saheb
4. Sardar Avtar Singh Hit S/o- late Sardar Harnam Singh R/o- I/B 307, Hari
Nagar, New Defhi-110064/Z-B Rajouri Garden New Dethi-110027,
President of the Prabandhak Committee, Takht Sri Harmandir Ji, Patna
Saheb Sardar Raja Singh, S/o lete Sohan Singh Azad, R/o Moballa-
Harimandir Gali, P.S.- Chowk, Patna city.
5. Jathedar Gyani Iqbal Singh S/o Soban Singh R/o Takht Sri Harimandir Ji.
Patna Saheb, Patna, Permanent R/o House No.39 B-Block, Darshan Avenue,
Sultan Wind, Amritsar, Punjab.
6. Sardar Raja Singh Son of Late Sohan Singh Azad, R/o Mohalla- Harmandir
Gali, P.S.- Chowk, Patna City Distt- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Majid Mahboob Khan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 05-02-2025
Record has been taken up on mentioning being made
on behalf of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated
15.09.2021
passed by learned District Judge, Patna in Misc.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1423 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025
Case No. 36 of 2019.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order has been passed without consideration of fact
and the law applicable. One Gyani Iqbal Singh in whose favour
the impugned order has been passed was the Jathedar and he
submitted his resignation but the learned trial court held the
acceptance of the resignation letter to be not valid and it was
declared null and void. Learned trial court ordered that
respondent no. 5 Gyani Iqbal Singh was entitled to
consequential benefits treating the job to be continuous from
05.03.2019 and directed for reinstatement of Gyani Iqbal Singh
as Jathedar of Sri Takht Harimandir Ji, Patna Saheb, Patna and
Misc. Case No. 36 of 2019 was allowed with all consequential
benefits. But on the date of passing of the impugned order,
respondent no. 5 Gyani Iqbal Singh had already attained the age
of superannuation as his date of birth is 04.07.1958 and age of
superannuation is 63 years according to resolution of
Prabandhak Committee and there was no question of his
reinstatement. However, the learned trial court did not consider
this fact and passed the order. Moreover, the present petitioner
was not made party and the impugned order was passed against
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1423 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025
the principles of natural justice as the petitioner had been
appointed as Jathedar vide resolution dated 09.09.2019 after
respondent no. 5 tendered his resignation on 03.03.2019.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to
apprise this Court why the petitioner has not approached this
Court earlier though it has been submitted that earlier a writ
petition being C.W.J.C. No. 19086 of 2021 has been filed but
the same was dismissed in default on 27.06.2023 and M.J.C.
No. 2484 of 2024 was filed for its restoration. But C.W.J.C. No.
19086 of 2021 was not restored and M.J.C. No. 2484 of 2024
was disposed of on submission of learned counsel that as the
said petition had been filed after a great delay for more than a
year, the petitioner be granted liberty to agitate his subsisting
grievances, if any, by taking recourse to the due process of law.
Liberty, so sought, was granted. Filing of a civil writ under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India and allowing it to be
dismissed in default and thereafter, filing a belated restoration
petition and seeking its disposal by the petitioner speaks for
itself that the petitioner wants to keep the matter alive and
towards this end he has again approached this Court. It seems
the petitioner is not genuinely interested in challenging the order
of the learned District Judge, Patna, otherwise he would have
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1423 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025
approached this Court at the first instance. The petitioner has
allowed the claim to become stale and has approached this
Court at a very belated stage.
6. The petitioner has assailed the order dated
15.09.2021 passed in Misc. Case No. 36 of 2019 by learned
District Judge, Patna mainly on the ground that the order passed
in favour of respondent no. 5 was wrong as respondent no. 5 had
already attained the age of superannuation and for this reason
the order for his reinstatement as Jathedar of Takht Sri
Harimandir Ji, Patna Saheb, Patna is wrong and incorrect. The
recourse open to the petitioner was to approach the same court
seeking modification of the order, if this fact was earlier not
brought to the notice of the learned trial court, the same could
not be agitated for the first time before this Court. In any case
the impugned order is a speaking order and the learned trial
court has recorded its reasons for allowing the miscellaneous
case and this Court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India would not like to interfere with the
impugned order as there appears no excess or want of
jurisdiction. Hence, the impugned order dated 15.09.2021 is
affirmed.
7. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1423 of 2024 dt.05-02-2025
petition, the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at
liberty to take up the issue regarding respondent no. 5 attaining
the age of superannuation on the date of judgment dated
15.09.2021 and his other grievances before the learned trial
court in an appropriate proceeding permissible under the extant
provisions of law.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
DKS/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 14.02.2025
Transmission Date NA
