JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, C.J.
1. The appellants in this appeal are challenging judgment and order dated 9.5.2002 passed by learned single Judge in CWP. No. 2913/2002. Before adverting to the impugned order, it would be appropriate to scan through the relevant facts as the present litigation has history starting from the Writ Petition No. 2773/2001 as well as some connected writ petitions which were filed in this Court earlier.
2. CWP. No. 2773/2001 was filed by one Mr. Kuldip Singh Bhogal who was an elected member of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee. He sought a direction in the nature of mandamus to respondent No. 1 for holding general elections of the Committee of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DSGPC’). This and connected writ petitions were disposed of by learned Single Judge vide common judgment dated 11.9.2001 by issuing the following directions:
“Accordingly a writ of mandamus is issued to respondent No. 37 to hold the elections of the Committee as directed by Section 5 of the Act not later than 31st January, 2001. It is also directed that in future elections which will become due after 4 years upon the expiry of the term of the Committee to be elected in the election, as ordered above, the time schedule for the elections as specified in paragraph 12 of the judgment will be followed.”
3. The respondent No. 1, namely, Govt. of NCT of Delhi filed Letters Patent Appeal against the aforesaid judgment which was marked as LPA. No. 614/2001. The respondent No. 1 in the said appeal had mainly challenged this judgment on the ground that it was not possible to hold the elections by 31.1.2001. The said appeal, after hearing, was disposed of vide order dated 19-12-2001. It would be appropriate to reproduce the entire order which reads as under:
“To what extent the inefficiency of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi can go even in the matter of holding of elections, pursuant to the order of the Court, is writ large on the face of the record. Before the learned Single Judge, it was unequivocally stated that, normally a period of four months was required to complete the election process. Learned Single Judge noticed as follows:
“The only dispute raised before me has been regarding the time required to hold this election. Mrs. Ahlawat, appearing for the Director of Gurdwara Elections has pleaded that he be given a time span of about 8 months time to hold the elections. She has further submitted that this 8 months period is required because of various reasons including the pending approval of the amendment to lower the age of sikh voters from the existing 21 years to 18 years. Another reason stated for the 8 months period is said to be the exercise being carried on to re-arrange the polling stations comprising the various wards of the Committee in such a manner that the strength of voters is almost the same in all the wards. It has further been stated that fresh delimitation exercise has been undertaken so that in all the wards there is a proportionate distribution of the voters. The DSGMC has also invited objections from the public at large the finalisation of which is awaited.
I am of the view that the factors mentioned by Mrs. Ahlawat such as the lowering of the age and delimitation cannot delay the elections of the Committee which became due in 1999 and not holding of the elections is not countenanced by the Act nor is it in the public interest to delay/postpone the elections which ought to have been held in the year 1999. It is not in dispute that the statutory requirement and mandate is that the elections should take place every four years. The only question is the time which is required for conduction the elections.
I ascertained from Ms. Ahlawat, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, the time required de hors the process of delimitation and the lowering of the voters age. She informed this Court that this process will take about 4 months. In the additional affidavit filed on 10th September 2000 in court it is stated that due to the ordering of the special revision of rolls by the Election Commission of India by its order dated 17the august 2001 the work for the revision of the electoral roll was started which will be over only on 31st January 2002. The MCD elections are also due on or around February – March 2002 and the MCD elections and the elections of the DSGMC cannot be held simultaneously.
In this view of the matter and considering the submissions of Mrs. Ahlawat, including those made in the additional affidavit, and the fact that the elections to the Committee have not taken place since 1999, I am of the view that the mandate of Section 5 and the other provisions of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1971 require that the elections for the Committee be held expeditiously and not later than 31st January 2002.”
More than four and a half months period was thus granted by the learned Single Judge. An application was filed before the learned Single Judge for extension of the said time, inter alia on the ground that personnel who were to be deployed for the afore-mentioned purpose had been deployed with the Election Commissioner. It is really beyond our comprehension as to how the petitioner herein can take the afore-mentioned stand on the face of the order passed by the Court, which was more or less based upon a concession to the effect that elections can be held within a period of four months. Holding of elections was all the more necessary, having regard to the fact that, in terms of provisions of the Act, elections must be held within a period of four years and no election has been held since 1999. It is also not in dispute that members of the Executive Board, whose turn has otherwise expired, continue to hold their positions without facing any elections since May 2000.
Despite this we cannot lose sight of the fact that certain mandatory provisions, in terms of the statute are required to be complied with, as stated in the petition, which are set out as under:
“1.
Last date for filing nominations : (7
days after the date of publication of notification by Hon’ble LG/Director
Gurdwara Elections under rule 11 & 12.)
7 days
2.
Scrutiny of nominations:
1 day
3.
Withdrawal of candidatures:
2 days
4.
Date of election (notearlier : than
20 days from the date of withdrawal
)
20 days
5.
Counting of votes:
1 day
6.
Date before which the election : process shall be completed ”
7 days
A minimum period of 45 days time is therefore required to make the preliminary arrangements, where after 30 days more time would be required for completion of the elections. Although we are not satisfied with the stand taken by the appellant herein, we are of the opinion that by non grant of extension of time, we cannot give scope of further litigation in the matter. We, therefore, direct that the entire process of elections must be completed by 15th March 2002.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the order be given dusty to counsel for the parties.”
4. In the meantime, before the elections could be held by such date as per directions given in the aforesaid order, another development took place. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara (Amendment) Act, 2002 was passed as per which any person who had completed the age of 18 years in stead of 21 years became entitled to participate in the elections. This necessitated updating the electrol roll. The respondent No.1 in the circumstances expressed its difficulty in holding the elections by the aforesaid stipulated date and filed CM. 212/2002 praying for further time of three months for updating the electrol roll and completing the elections. Extension of time for three months was granted from 15.3.2002 but it was specifically made clear in the order dated 6.2.2002 that no further extension shall be granted. Thus as per this order the respondent No.1 is required to complete the election process by 15.6.2002.
5. As would be noticed at the appropriate stage the respondent No.1 thereafter completed the process of updating the electoral roll. At this stage the appellants herein filed CWP.No.2913/2002. The appellants are members of Sikh Community and claimed that being the Sikh citizens residing in Delhi and having completed 18 years of age, they have a right to enroll themselves as voters in the electoral rolls for elections of members of the DSGPC. In the writ petition the grievenace made by these appellants was that sufficient time has not been given to them for filing objections as in terms of Rule-II of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee (Registration of Electors) Rules, 1973, they are entitled to 21 days for filing objections after the issue of notification for this purpose and in case elections are held on or before 15.6.2002 sufficient time will not be available for filing the objections and holding elections. It was accordingly prayed that a direction be given to the respondents to complete and prepare the electoral roll as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules and respondents be restrained form initiating the election process without completing the electoral rolls as prescribed under the Act.
6. This Writ has been dismissed by impugned judgment and order dated 9.5.2002.
7. Learned Single Judge noticed in the impugned order that the Director Gurdwara Elections had issued notification dated 1.5.1992 inviting objections to the electoral rolls prepared by the Director and in terms of the Act these objections could be filed within 21 days of the issue of the notification. Therefore, required time as per the rules was in fact given. The learned Single Judge also noted that any objection that may be filed by any person to the electrol rolls would be decided by the Director and in that view of the matter the apprehension of the appellants that sufficient time would not be left for conducting the elections was unfounded. The other argument of the appellants was that after reducing the age from 21 to 18 years to become eligible for enrolment as voter, over one lakh sikh citizens had become eligible and, therefore, time granted by the Director Gurdwara Elections was not sufficient for enrolment of the voters. This apprehension was also turned down by observing as under:
“From the record, I find that first notification was issued on 19.2.2002 informing the Sikh Voters to get themselves enrolled as voters pursuant to the amendment made in the Act and there was thus sufficient time available to such persons to enrol themselves as voters. Secondly, I am informed by learned counsel for the respondent that already about 38,000 Sikhs who had attained the age of 18 years have been enrolled and there is thus no reason to hold that sufficient time has not been given to those who have attained the age of 18 years, to ensure themselves as voters. Any person who makes an application within the prescribed time for being enrolled, will be enrolled as a voters. I, therefore, do not find any merits in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed,”
8. Mr. Sudhir Chandra Agarwal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants advanced the same argument before us. He referred to public notice dated 23.5.2002 as per which the last date for filing objections is 27.5.2002 and submitted that when the process of receiving objections was still on, it was not appropriate to hold the elections by 15.6.2002. However, Mrs. Ahlawat clarified that the said public notice is only reiteration of earlier notification dated 1.5.2002 reminding the Sikh citizens of Delhi again that the objections were being accepted at the officers of all the 16 designated Electoral Registration officers and she assured that all the objections received would be duly considered and decided by the Directorate.
9. Mr. Chandra could not dispute the aforementioned facts, namely, first notification for enrolment of voters was issued on 19.2.2002 for getting themselves enrolled as voters and further notification inviting objections was issued on 1.5.1992 in terms whereof 21 days time was given for filing objections, followed by public notice dated 23rd May, 2002 for receiving the objections up to 27th May, 2002. In this manner the objections up to 27th May, 2002. In this manner the respondents have complied with the requirement of law. We agree with the learned Single Judge that after 21.5.2002 the Director, Gurdwara Elections still would have sufficient time to decide the objection and finalise the electoral rolls as the last date for holding the elections is 15.6.2002.
10. It may also be relevant to point out here that elections could not be held for quite some time and in fact the elections of the Committee became due in the year 1999 and that was the reason the learned Single Judge will deciding earlier Writ Petition No. 2773/2001 held that when the election process has already been delayed, it would not be in public interest to delay or postpone these elections any further. More so, while granting extension of time to the respondent No.1 in CM. 212/2002 in LPA.No.614/2001 vide order dated 6.2.2002 it was categorically expressed that no further extension shall be granted.
11. Moreover, Mrs. Ahlawat informed at the time of arguments that the notification for election was going to be issued on or about 28.5.2002. When the election process is, therefore, set in motion, it is not proper to interfere with the same at this stage. In case the appellants or any other persons have any grievance in the manner objections are dealt with ultimately or against the preparation of electoral roll, it would be open for such persons to challenge the same, or the election process, in accordance with the provisions of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Act by filing appropriate election petition.
With the aforesaid observations, present appeal is dismissed.