M A I N   N E W S

Bibi’s counsel submits reply
From Our Correspondent

AMRITSAR, Aug 17 — Counsel for the SGPC President, Bibi Jagir Kaur, contended before the three-member Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission here today that it had no jurisdiction to try the petition against her for abuse of power and misuse of gurdwara funds.

A written reply was submitted to the panel on a petition by Vice-President of the Sarb Hind Youth Akali Dal, Mr Satpal Singh Wadali, under Section 142 of the Sikh Gurdwara Act for recovery of Rs 10 lakh along with 18 per cent interest from the SGPC President for the expenditure on the purchase of tickets and other expenses of delegates attending the World Religions Conference in South Africa. The court adjourned the hearing till August 25.

The matter in question did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, counsel told the commission. Hence, the court could not try the petition.

It was denied that oral directions were given by the Bibi to the information officer, Mr Gurbachan Singh, who is also one of the respondents, to give Rs 5 lakh to meet the expenditure on account of purchase of air tickets.

The facts were that Mr Gurbachan Singh had taken an advance of Rs 5 lakh from the Dharam Parchar Committee for the purchase of air tickets and other expenses such as a framed picture of Kesgarh Sahib which had cost Rs 32,000, 20 laminated photos of the Golden Temple with a wooden frame and 60 kangas (combs) in rosewood.

The commission also adjourned hearing till August 22 on a petition filed against Bibi Jagir Kaur, the secretary of the SGPC, Dr Gurbachan Singh Bachan, and two more for flouting service rules in appointing 346 persons in the SGPC services from March 16 to October 31 last year, after counsel for the Bibi and other respondents submitted a written reply to the petition.

It was pointed out that the petition was bad in law due to non-serving of the notice to the SGPC, which was the employer. He contended that the commission had no jurisdiction to try this petition which was filed only to challenge the appointment of employees in the SGPC as it was tantamount to service matter of the employees and the SGPC.

Counsel denied that these appointments had been made by Bibi Jagir Kaur and others to accommodate their near and dear ones. The respondent, Bibi Jagir Kaur, in order to carry out urgent work in gurdwaras under Section 85 of the Sikh Gurdwara Act had filled these vacancies on a trial basis. It was also incorrect that relatives of the SGPC employees could not be appointed under the rules.

Yet another petition filed by Mr Harbax Singh on appointment of Mr Kirpal Singh Chohan, who has been made in charge of the sub-office of the SGPC at Chandigarh, was adjourned till September 8.