Tuesday,
November 12, 2002, Chandigarh, India
|
 |
| M A I
N N E W S |
SGJC orders stayed
12 SGPC members to cast vote
Tribune News ServiceChandigarh, November 11
Staying the operation of the orders passed by the Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission restraining at least 12 Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee members from exercising their franchise during the elections scheduled to be held tomorrow, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court today directed that the votes polled by them would not be counted till further orders. The members would, however, not be allowed to contest the elections. Pronouncing the orders in the open Court, the Bench, comprising the Chief Justice Mr B.K. Roy and Mr Justice G.S. Singhvi, also restrained the Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission from passing any orders with regard to at least two other members against whom petitions were pending. In their detailed orders, the Judges ruled that the votes polled by the members would be kept separately in a sealed cover and would not be counted subject to further orders of the Court. Taking up of the petitions, the Judges also issued notices to the Punjab Chief Minister, besides the Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission, and certain other respondents, before fixing November 26 as the next date of hearing in the case. The Bench also fixed November 12 as the next date of hearing on another petition filed by Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission member Dara Singh challenging the orders of his suspension. The Judges added that orders were not required to be passed on an application filed by SGPC President Kirpal Singh Badungar for restraining the Commission from passing any order against him during the pendency of the writ petition in the light of an undertaking earlier given to the Court. Earlier during the proceedings, counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Judicial Commission could not pass suspension orders by way of interim measure as there was no provision for the same under the Sikh Gurdwara Act. He also placed reliance on a judgement pronounced by the Division Bench of the High Court for substantiating his
contentions. Arguing on behalf of the Commission President, counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the Judicial Commission was vested with such powers and as such the petition should be dismissed. Punjab’s Advocate-General added that the petitioners, in all fairness, should be permitted to cast their votes, but the same should not be counted, subject to further Court orders. It should be kept in a separate sealed cover and should not be counted at the present stage. Counsel for the Chief Minister, meanwhile, contended that the allegations of mala fide levelled against the CM were wholly unfounded and
there was no merit in the same.In one such application, member Sucha Singh Langha had earlier stated that he should be allowed to “function and act as SGPC member”. Permission to contest and vote during the elections were also sought, along with stay on the orders passed by the Judicial Commission restraining him from participating in the process. Going into the background of the case, Langha had stated that the orders restraining him from voting had been passed just before the elections in an illegal manner. Giving details, he had added that ex parte orders had been pronounced without any authority in a mala fide manner as provision for restraining or suspending members “while petitions under Section 142 were pending” did not exist under the Sikh Gurdwara Act. Otherwise also, orders could not be passed without the issuance of a notice. His counsel had added that SGJC member Dara Singh, in an affidavit earlier submitted before the High Court, had claimed that the Chairman, referring to petitions filed against Langha and other SGPC members, had told him that the Chief Minister’s prestige was at stake. As such Langha, and rest of the supporters of former Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal, had to be restrained from casting their vote in his support. Dara Singh’s averments came true when the petitioner learnt that orders had been passed against him and three other members participating in the elections on the basis of a petition, counsel added. Referring to an earlier order pronounced by the High Court, counsel had further added that the Commission had been restrained from passing orders against two other members — Kirpal Singh Bhadungar and Bibi Jagir Kaur. The Commission, he had concluded, was aware of the orders. Meanwhile, Dara Singh, in another petition challenging the orders of his suspension, had sought a high-level probe into the entire episode pertaining to his alleged implication in a “false” case. Badungar, on the other hand, had sought directions for restraining the Commission from passing orders adversely affecting his status. He claimed that an undertaking had already been given in the Court that orders adversely affecting his status would not be passed by the Commission, but as per news reports another petition had been entertained by the Commission. Claiming that efforts were being made by the government to oust the petitioner from his post, counsel added that the Commission may after all pass orders against Badungar as in the case of other SGPC members.
|
