The Patna High Court, in its dismissal of a petition challenging the nomination made by the District Judge of Patna to the Prabandhak Committee overseeing Sri Takhat Harimandir Ji, Patna Saheb, emphasized that the petitioners, primarily concerned with the management of the religious site, did not represent a marginalized or downtrodden community warranting intervention through Article 226.

The division bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Rajiv Roy observed, “The writ petition is filed as a public interest petition and we do not find any reason to entertain the same. The 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 of the Constitution of India, bypassing the other remedies available.”

“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 bench added.

The petitioner – Sikh Collective – had contended in it's plea that the District Judge, Patna ought not to have made the three nominations before the election is over, since it is de hors 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.

In its verdict, the Court observed that the Constitution and Bye-laws were presented at Annexure-1, and noted that the nomination by the District Judge occurred in his ex officio capacity.

The Court highlighted that the Nomination is conducted under Clause 9 of Chapter IV, and the Managing Committee consists of 15 members, with 14 nominated by various bodies, including three by the District Judge. Additionally, three members are elected by the local Sikhs of Patna district, and the remaining member is co-opted by the 14 committee members.

The Court indicated that there is no requirement for the nomination to occur after the election, and pointed out that none of the current committee members were included in the writ petition.

It was prima facie observed by the Court, “there is nothing mandating the nomination to be done after the election. Further, none of the other existing committee members have been impleaded in the present writ petition.”

“We find that the District Judge's role in the Constitution being one ex officio, he does not discharge any judicial function in that role, insofar as the Constitution and Bye-laws of the Patna Saheb are concerned. The remedy to any person aggrieved is the civil remedy wherein the community will also have to be represented,” the Court added.

cited a prior court order regarding an identical issue involving the same institution, which had been brought before the court as a Public Interest Litigation. In that case, the judges had noted with concern that successive officeholders in the position of District Judge, Patna, were reluctant to engage with the shrine's Constitution and Bye-laws due to various litigations, some of which targeted the District Judge personally.

In response to which, the court remarked, “We find that this is one among the litigations as referred to by the Division Bench one and a half decades back. The situation has not changed with the passage of time, is what we notice, with equal consternation. Again the learned Judges had hoped and directed the State officials to seek appropriate orders from the highest level and explore the possible ways and means including fresh litigation so that the affairs of a very famous and respected shrine situated in Patna Saheb may be managed efficiently, so as to serve the interest of not only the Sikh community, but of the entire State and Nation.”

“We do not see the pious wish expressed by the learned Division Bench having been followed up. In any event, we cannot, but notice that the learned Judges did not pass any positive directions in CWJC No. 18827 of 2018, which stands disposed of on 07.12.2010,” the Court added.

Coming to the present writ petition, the Court emphasized that it did not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the District Judge, in a Public Interest Litigation.

The contours of PIL's and the circumstances on which the Constitutional Courts take a proactive role have been delineated, the Court said placing reliance on Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan, (2003) 7 SCC 546.

“We find no good reason to invoke and exercise the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in public interest, in the above case; the grievance projected in which has to be agitated in an appropriate civil forum,” the Court held while declining discretionary exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and dismissing the writ petition.

The Court clarified that it had merely declined discretion and did not validate the nomination which, if any individual or body is prejudiced with, will have to be agitated before the appropriate civil forum.

“When such proceedings are instituted, it would be for the forum approached to decide on the locus standi of the applicant and maintainability of such a proceeding; and if found inclined on these aspects, to decide on the merits,” the Court concluded while rejecting the writ petition in limine.

Appearance:

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Sachina

Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. P.K. Shahi, Mr. Vikas Kumar, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Mr. Vipin Kumar

Case no.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.800 of 2024

Case Title: The Sikh Collective vs The State of Bihar & Ors.

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 28

Click Here To Read The Judgement