Dismissed

Shri Guru Singh Sabha etc. v. State of Punjab etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Aug 2009CWP/11679/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking restoration of possession of a Gurudwara and educational institutions allegedly forcibly taken by private parties. The court dismissed the petition due to existence of disputed factual questions and availability of alternative civil and criminal remedies.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail alternative civil and criminal remedies.

Shri Guru Singh Sabha etc. Vs State of Punjab etc. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

C.W.P. No. 11679 of 2009 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.W.P. No. 11679 of 2009

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 12, 2009

¶5

Sri Guru Singh Sabha (Regd.), Model Town, Jalandhar through its President and others

¶6

.....PETITIONERS

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

....RESPONDENTS

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

¶11

Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.

¶13

The petitioners have filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 4 to hand over back the possession of Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha (Regd.), Model Town, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as `the Gurudwara') and its educational institutions together with their official records, which have been illegally and forcibly taken over by respondents No.7 and 8 in connivance with respondents No.5 and 6. It is also prayed that respondents No.1 to 4 be further directed to register a criminal case against respondents No.7 and 8, who have illegally and forcibly taken possession of the Gurudwara and its educational institutions, and also for causing loss, damaging, rioting etc.

¶14

In the petition, it has been stated that petitioner No.1 is a registered Society under the provisions of the Society Registration Act,

¶15

C.W.P. No. 11679 of 2009 -2-

¶16

Petitioner No.2 to 11 are the office bearers and members of the Managing Committee of the Society. It is also stated that the petitioner Society is running two Schools in the name of Guru Amar Dass Public School, one is located at Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar and the other at Model Town, Jalandhar, which are affiliated with CBSE.

¶17

It is further stated that respondents No.7 and 8 along with their supporters, armed with deadly weapons, took over the possession of the Gurudwara and its two educational institutions along with all the records by breaking open the locks of doors and almirahs on 4.7.2009 with the help of respondents No.5 and 6. In the petition, it is claimed that after the removal of one Shri Ratnesh Singh Sodhi, petitioner No.2 was elected as President of the petitioner Society and other petitioners as Members of the Managing Committee. In nutshell, in the petition the allegation of the petitioners is that respondents No.7 and 8, in connivance with District Administration, have illegally and forcibly taken over possession of the Gurudwara and its two educational institutions while dispossessing the petitioners, who were in lawful possession of the same.

¶18

After hearing the counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any ground to entertain this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the petition, many disputed questions of facts have been raised. Further, if the respondents have illegally and forcibly taken over possession of the Gurudwara and its two educational institutions, the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy before the Civil Court under the ordinary law of the land by filing a suit for mandatory injunction or a suit for possession. In the writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot go into the disputed questions of facts and issue direction to the official respondents to get

¶19

C.W.P. No. 11679 of 2009 -3-

¶20

restored the possession of the Gurudwara and its two educational institutions to petitioners No.2 to 11, who claim themselves to be the office bearers and members of the petitioner Society. It is not the case of the petitioners that any official respondent has illegally and forcibly taken over possession of the Gurudwara and its two educational institutions. Regarding second prayer made in the petition, I am also of the opinion that in this regard also the petitioners have an effective remedy of filing a criminal complaint against a person, who alleged to have committed the wrong.

¶21

Thus, keeping in view the fact that disputed questions of facts have been raised in this petition as well as the fact that the petitioners have alternative civil and criminal remedy available under the ordinary law of the land, I am not inclined to entertain this petition and the same is hereby dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail those remedies in accordance with law.

¶22

August 12, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE

Shri Guru Singh Sabha etc. v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Guru Singh Sabha etc. v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Shiv Shakti Exports and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sanjiv Kumar and Ors. Vs Hy.St. and ORS.(MAIN6)

Shashi Sharma etc. Vs State of Haryana etc. (M1)

Brij Mohan Behal Vs Kurukshetra University and Anr.

Dharam Pal Gautam Vs Uhbvnl and Ors.

Pardeep Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.