Holding

Writ petitions challenging election disputes are not maintainable where the statute provides a specific election‑petition remedy and where necessary parties have not been impleaded.

Summary

The Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee held elections for its Executive Board on 19 December 2005, but the petitioner claimed confusion over the meeting date prevented his participation. He filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the election, while the newly elected office bearers were not impleaded as respondents. The High Court initially set aside the election, but a Division Bench reversed that decision, holding the writs maintainable despite the existence of an alternative remedy. The Supreme Court held that where a statute provides a specific election‑petition remedy, writ petitions are not the proper forum, and that failure to join necessary parties (the newly elected members) renders the writs non‑maintainable. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed and the writ petitions were struck down.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when the Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1971 provides a specific election‑petition remedy under Section 31.
Whether the non‑impleadment of the newly elected office bearers as respondents defeats the maintainability of the writ petitions.
Whether the factual dispute concerning alleged confusion over the election date should be decided by an election petition rather than by a writ.

Legislation cited

Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957s. 15, s. 16, s. 17, s. 19, s. 20, s. 22, s. 23, s. 24, s. 25, s. 27, s. 28, s. 29, s. 30
Limitation Act, 1963s. 12, s. 5

Subjects

Election lawWrit petitionArticle 226Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras ActElection petitionNon‑joinder of partiesStatutory remedySupreme Court

Judgment

A AVTAR SINGH HIT
V.

DELHI SIKH GURDWARA MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE AND ORS

OCTOBER 18, 2006

B [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, G.P. MATHUR AND
R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.]

Election Laws:

c Delhi Sikh Gurudwaras Act, I971-Sections 3I and 33-Dispute
regarding confusion in date fvced for holding election of the office bearers of
Executive Board of the Committee-Consequently some members could not
participate in the election-Validity of election challenged, by way of writ
petition-Correctness of-Held: Dispute being purely factual in nature, can
D be resolved by examination of oral evidence-Proper remedy would be election
petition under section 31-No exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
disclosed to justifY recourse under Article 226-Also writ petition filed wilhout
impleading the newly elected office bearers of the Executive Board as necessary
parties-Thus, writ petition not maintainable-Constitution of India, 1950-
Article 226.
E
Constitution of India, I 950-Article 226-Writ petition-Maintainability,
when necessary parties not impleaded-Held: Writ petition not maintainable.

P was elected as the President and R was elected as the Secretary of
the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee for the year 2004-06.
F The term of the Executive Board of the Committee expired but P did not
hold a meeting of the Committee for electing the new members of the
Executive Board. Members of the Committee made representation to the
Secretary for holding fresh elections of the Executive Board for the year
2005-06. Election was held on 19.12.2005 and new office bearers of the
G Executive Board of the Committee were elected for the year 2005-2006.
The constitution of the new executive Board for the year 2005-06 was
announced. Thereafter, appellant filed writ petitions challenging the
election held on· 19.12.2005 for electing the members of the Executive
Board of the Committee on the ground that the President and the

H 316
AVTAR SINGH HIT 1·. DELHI SIKH GURDWARA MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 3 J7
Senetary took a contradictory stand regarding the date of the meeting A
in which the new office bearers of the Executive Board had to be elected
and created confusion thereby, as a result he could not participate in the
elections though he was keen to contest for the election for the office of
the President. Gurdwara Management Committee and its President
contended that since the office bearers of the newly elected Executive B
Board who had been functioning since 19.12.2005 were not impleaded as
party to the writ petition, and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy
of filing an election petition under section 31 of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras
Act, 1971, writ petitions were not maintainable. Single Judge of High
Court countermanded and set aside the election held on 19.12.2005 of the
members of Executive Board and directed that fresh elections be held. C
Division Bench of High Court set aside the order of the Single Judge.
Without going into the issue regarding the effect of the non-joinder of the
newly elected members it expressed a prima facie view that its effect is
not fatal and that despite the alternative remedy of election petition being
available, writ petitions were maintainable. Hence the present appeals. D
Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: I.I. Where elections are conducted in accordance with the
provisions of a statute and the statute also provides a remedy of settlement
of election disputes by filing an election petition before a tribunal, it is E
that remedy alone which should be availed of and recourse cannot be taken
to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. (327-H; 328-A(

1.2. The pleadings of the parties and also the material placed in the
writ petition clearly show that the dispute raised as to whether some
confusion had been created regarding the date fixed for holding of the F
meeting of the Committee for electing the office bearers of the Executive
Board, as a result of which some members of the Committee could not
participate in the meeting was purely factual in nature. The dispute could
more appropriately be resolved by examination of oral evidence to be led
by the parties. Appellant claimed that on account of the confusion in dates G
he could not attend the meeting though he was very keen to participate
in the meeting and contest for the office of the President of the Executive
Board. In view of the nature of the dispute raised the proper remedy for
the petitioner was to file an election petition as provided in Section 31 of
the Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act where parties could have got opportunity H
to lead oral evidence. No exceptional or extraordinary circumstances were
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A disclosed which could justify recourse to the extraordinary remedy under
Article 226 of the Constitution and for not availing the remedy provided
by the statute. Thus, the writ petitions filed by the appellants were not
maintainable. (331-B-E(

N.P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, AIR (1952) SC 64;
B Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, AIR (1978) SC 851;
K.K. Shrivastava v. Bhupendra Kumar Jain, AIR (1978) SC 1703; Gujarat
University v. Shri N. U. Rajguru, AIR (1988) SC 66; S. r Muthusami v. K.
Natarajan, AIR (1988) SC 616; C. Subrahmanyam v. K. Ramanjaneyu/lu,
(1998( 8 SCC 703; Ashok Kumar Jain v. Neetu Kathoria, [2004) 12 SCC 73
C and Umesh Shivappa Ambi v. Angadi Shekara Basappa, [1998( 4 SCC 529;
Harnek Singh v. Charanjit Singh, (2005) 8 SCC 383, relied on.

2. The respondents took a specific plea before the High Court in the
counter affidavit filed on their behalf that the new office bearers of the
Executive Board, who had been elected in the meeting held on 19.12.2005,
D were not impleaded as respondents to the writ petition. In spite of such
clear assertion in the counter affidavit, the writ petitioner did not choose
to im plead the newly elected office bearers of the Executive Board. On
the contrary, the President and the Secretary of the earlier Executive
Board were arrayed as respondents to the writ petition. Thus, no relief
E could have been granted t-0 the writ petitioner on account of the fact that
the newly elected office bearers of the Executive Board, who would have
been affected by the decision of the writ petitions, were not impleaded as
party to the writ petitions. Non-impleadment of the newly elected office
bearers of the Executive Board was fatal. Thus, the writ petition was not
F competent as necessary parties were not impleaded as respondents to the
same. (333-A-B(

Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue,
Bihar, AIR (1963) SC 786; Prabodh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR
1985 SC 167; !shwar Singh v. Ku/dip Singh and Ors., [1995( Supp. I SCC
G 179 and Arun Tewari and Ors. v. Zita Mansavi Shikshak Sangh and Ors., AIR
(1998) SC 331, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4532 of2006.

From the Final Judgment dated 1.3.2006 fo the High Court of Delhi at
H New Delhi LP.A. Nos. 244-245/2006.
AVT AR SINGH Hlll". DELHI SIKH GURDWARA MANAGEMENT COMM!TIEE [G.P. MA THUR, J.J3 J9 .

WITH A
C.A. Nos. 4533,4534 and 4535 of 2006.

Soli J. Sorabjee, Mukul Rohtagi, Rajiv K. Garg, Ashish Garg, Inderbir
Singh, Jagdeep S. Lamba, Pradeep Kumar Bakshi and Annam D.N. Rao for
the Appellant. B

Fali S. Nariman, Jagmohan Sabharwal, K.N. Balagopal, S.C. Sharma,
Rajan Sabharwal, K. Bharthi, Mukundan, S. Srinivasan, S.R. Sharma,
Madhusmita Bora, S. Balaji, Devendra Singh and C.N. Sree Kumar for the
Respondents.
c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G.P. MATHUR, J. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been filed challenging the judgment and order
dated 1.3.2006 passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court by which D
Letters Patent Appeals were allowed and the judgment and order of the
learned single Judge disposing of four writ petitions was set aside. The learned
single Judge had allowed the writ petitions and countermanded the election
of the members of the Executive Board of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management
Committee, which was held on 19.12.2005 and had issued a further direction E
that fresh election be held on 14.2.2006.

3. The controversy raised in all the four appeals is identical and for the
sake of convenience we will refer to the facts of Civil Appeal No. 4532 of
2006 (arising out SLP (C) No. 5188 of 2006) (Avtar Singh Hit v. Delhi Sikh F
Gurdwara Management Committee and Ors.,). The principal issue raised is
regarding the validity of the election held on 19.12.2005 for electing the
· members of the Executive Board of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management
Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'DSGMC'). In order to understand the
controversy involved it is necessary to make a brief reference to the relevant
statutory provisions. G
4. The Parliament enacted The Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1971
• (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to provide for the proper management
of the Sikh Gurdwaras and Gurdwara property in Delhi and for matters
connected therewith. Section 2(c) of the Act defines "Committee" and it H
means the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee established under
...
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 provides for establishment of a committee
called the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee for the proper
management and control of the Gurdwaras and Gurdwara property. The
Committee shall be a body corporate with the name aforesaid having perpetual
succession and a common seal and shall by such name sue and be sued.
B Section 4 provides for composition of the Committee. Sub-section (a) of this
Section provides that forty six members shall be elected from various wards
into which Delhi is divided in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Besides them some members have to be co-opted and nominated in the
manner prescribed in the section. Section 5 provides that the term of the
office of the members of the Committee shall be four years. Section 16
C provides for the election of the office bearers and members of the Executive
Board. Sub-section (5) of Section 16 lays down that the President and the
other members of the Executive Board elected under sub-section ( 1) or sub-
section (2) shall hold office for a term of one year but shall be eligible for
re-election for one more term only. The proviso to this sub-section says that
D an outgoing office bearer or member shall continue in office until election of
his successor is held. Sub-section (6) of Section 16 lays down that the election
of the President and other office bearers and members of the Executive
Board under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or any subsequent annual
election to any of those offices shall be held in such manner as may be
prescribed by Rules. Section 40 of the Act provides that the Committee may
E make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or the rules
made thereunder for carrying out its functions under the Act. Regulation
4(1), which has been made by the Committee and has some relevance for the
decision of the case reads is as under: -

F "4. Meetings of the Committee/Executive Board etc.
(I) Annual General Meeting
(i) Annual General Meetings of the Committee shall be held in
the month of September every year to hold election of Office-
bearers and members of the Executive Board. The date of election
G once announced by the President/General Secretary shall not be
postponed.
(ii) Among other items, the Annual General Meetings shall
consider and approve:

H (a) Annual Report of the Committee;
AVTAR SINGH HIT 1·. DELHI SIKH GURDWARA MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE [G.P. MATHUR. J.]J 2 J

(b) Annual Budget containing proposals for A
( 1) Revised estimates of the current year;
(2) Budget estimates for the next year;
(c) Audited statement of accounts of the last year;
(d) Action taken on report for pending audit paras; B
(e) Format and the manner in which the accounts shall be
maintained in the next financial year;
(t) Appointment of Auditors for the next year.

Note: Election of New Executive Board and Office-bearers is to be C
held in accordance with the Rules framed or to be framed under
Clause (r) of sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Act
(iii) The agenda papers for the Annual General Meetings shall be
circulated by the General Secretary with approval of the Executive
Board at least 8 days before the date of meetings." D
5. The issue involved in the present case is regarding the election,
which was held for electing the members of the Executive Board for the year
2005-06. In the preceding year 2004-05, Shri Paramjit Singh Sama was elected
as President and Shri Ravinder Singh Khurana was elected as Secret&~y.
According to Shri Paramjit Singh Sarna the election was held on 19.12.2005 E
in which the new office bearers of the Executive Board for the year 2005-
06 were elected. There is no dispute that at the relevant time the Committee
which had to elect the members of the Executive Board had 50 members and
had the right to elect the members of the Executive Board from amongst
themse!ves. F
6. After constitution of the new Executive Board for the year 2005-06
had been announced as a result of election held on 19.12.2005 the appellant
Shri Avtar Singh Hit filed Writ Petition (C) No. 370 of 2006 in the Delhi
High Court praying that the alleged minutes of the meeting dated 19. 12.2005

- be quashed and a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to G
the writ petition to hold fresh election of the Executive Board. The parties
arrayed as respondents to the writ petition are: -

I. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee
2. Shri Paramjit Singh Sarna, President
H
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A 3. Shri Ravinder Singh Khurana, General Secretary
4. The Manager, Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee.

The same persons are arrayed as respondents in the present appeal.

7. The main facts pleaded in the writ petition are as follows. The last
B general elections were held on 30.6.2002 and a new Committee, which is the
present Committee in existence, was constituted. The Executive Boards, which
have life ofonly one year, were constituted in the elections held on 24.7.2002,
22.9.2003 and 22.11.2004. As respondent No. 2 in the writ petition did not
hold a meeting of the Committee for electing the members of the Executive
c Board after expiry of the term of the earlier Board on 21.11.2005, seventeen
members of the Committee made representation to the General Secretary on
28.11.2005 for holding of fresh election of the Executive Board for the year
2005-06. Thereafter the General Secretary sent a letter on the same day, i.e., •
on 28.11.2005 intimating that the meeting of the Committee shall take place
on 19.12.2005 to elect the office bearers of the Executive Board. The
D Officiating President S. Baldev Singh Rani Bagh sent a letter dated 1.12.2005
stating that the letter of the General Secretary dated 28.11.2005, whereby it
was informed that the election shall be held on 19.12.2005, had been issued
without any authority. However, the General Secretary by his letter dated
7.12.2005 disputed the authority of the Officiating President and reiterated
that what had been conveyed by his letter dated 28.11.2005 was correct.
E
Thereafter, Shri Paramjit Singh Sarna, respondent No. 2, sent a letter to the
members of the Committee on 8.12.2005 stating that there are no records to
indicate that the Executive Board had taken any decision to hold the election.
On 10.12.2005 the General Secretary gave a reply that the Committee was
under a legal obligation to hold the election and the same would be held on
F 19.12.2005. A letter was also sent by him to all the members on the same day
intimating his decision to hold the meeting as scheduled. In para 15 of the
writ petition it is stated that in a meeting, which had been called by Paramjit
Singh Sama, respondent No.2, on 15.12.2005, the members passed a resolution
that the election shall be held as scheduled on 19.12.2005. This was followed
G
by a communication sent by respondent No. 3 on 16.12.2005 to all the
members that as intimated earlier vide letter dated 28.11.2005 the meeting
shall take place on 19.12.2005. Respondent No. 2 then sent a letter to the
members that the meeting for electing the members of the Executive Board
.
shall be held on 18.1.2006. In para 28 of the writ petition it is stated that
though respondent No. 3 was taking up a stand that the order passed by him
H and communicated vide letter dated 28.11.2005 that the meeting shall be
AVTAR SINGH HIT 1·. DELHI SIKll GURDWARA MANAGEMENT COMMITIEE [G.P. MATHUR, J.]) 23

convened on 19.12.2005 was justified but respondent No. 2 had taken a stand A
that the meeting shall be held on 18.1.2006. ln para 29 of the writ petition
it is averred that the President in connivance with the General Secretary kept
the members of the Committee in a confused state of affairs and the position
was not clear till 16.12.2005. In para 32 of the writ petition it is alleged that
on account of aforesaid confusion the writ petitioner did not attend the meeting B
on 19.12.2005 though he was very much interested to contest the election for
the office of the President but on account of the confused state of affairs he
was deprived of his valuable right to participate and contest the election.

8. The respondent No. 1 filed a short affidavit stating that respondent
No. 3 had sent a letter to all the members on 28.11.2005 that the meeting C
shall be held on 19:12.2005. The respondent No. 2 had also sent a letter dated
17.12.2005 to all the members of the Committee that the Annual General
Meeting of the members of the DSGMC shall be held at 11.00 A.M. on
19.12.2005 and the said letter was delivered to all the members of the
Committee by 'Oak Rider'. The elections were held as scheduled on
19. I 2.2005 wherein 35 out of 50 members participated and the new office D
bearers had been elected with more than 2/3rd majority of the total membership
of the Committee. The new office bearers of the Executive Board had taken
over charge on the same day i.e. on 19.12.2005 but they had not been
impleaded as party to the writ petition. It was also pleaded that the election
of the office bearers could only be challenged by filing an election petition E
in accordance with Section 31 of the Act and the rules framed thereunder.

9. Shri Paramjit Singh Sarna, respondent No. 2, in the writ petition also
filed a short affidavit stating that 35 out of 50 members had taken part in the
meeting held on 19.12.2005. The writ petition was not maintainable on the
ground that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an election F
petition as provided in Section 31 of the Act. It was further pleaded that the
office bearers of the newly elected Executive Board, who have been
functioning since 19.12.2005, having not been impleaded as party to the writ
petition, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on ground of non-joinder
of necessary parties.
G
10. Shri Ravinder Singh Khurana, respondent No. 3, in the writ petition
filed a counter affidavit stating that after receipt of a representation from over
I/3rd members of the Committee for holding a fresh election, he issued a
letter dated 28.11.2005 fixing 19.12.2005 as the date for convening the meeting
and holding of elections and this had been done by him in exercise of powers H
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A vested in him under the Regulations. In fact, respondent No. 2, who was
holding the office of President, did not want to hold the election so that he
could continue in office. In para 7 of the counter affidavit it is stated that a
meeting of the Executive Board was held on 15.12.2005 wherein a decision
was taken to hold the elections on 19.12.2005 and accordingly a
B communication was sent to all the members of the Committee. However,
respondent No. 2 held another meeting wherein only 8 members were present
and a resolution was passed that the Secretary had no authority to circulate
the letter dated 28.11.2005 and it was further resolved that the meeting shall
be held on 7.1.2006. In para 9 of the counter affidavit it is averred that
respondent No. 2 issued another communication to the members of the
C Committee on 16.12.2005 stating that the meeting for electing the office
bears of the Executive Board would be held on 18.1.2006. Respondent No.
2 also passed an order whereby he declared 19.12.2005 to be a holiday.
Lastly, it is averred that the respondent No. 2 had never agreed for holding
of elections on 19.12.2005 and had in fact fixed 18.1.2006 for the said
purpose and thus holding of the election on 19.12.2005 by respondent No. 2
D was arbitrary and ma/a fide exercise of powers.

11. The learned single Judge held that the writ petitions are replete with
approbation and reprobation of the two warring factions; that the requirement
of Regulation 4 had been met; that the motions of holding of an election were
E factually completed on 19.12.2005; that the plea taken by the petitioners that
they did not have notice of the meeting could not be accepted. He further
held that the action of the General Secretary in cancelling the election on the
penultimate day was not permissible and the manner in which the election
had been concluded, it had been reduced to a farce. Finally, it was held that
the President's decision to go along with the elections scheduled on 19.12.2005
F was given at the eleventh hour and it did not meet with the expectations of
law. The learned single Judge accordingly passed an order countermanding
and setting aside the election held on 19 .12.2005 and further directed that the
election shall be held on 14.2.2006.

12. Shri Paramjit Singh Sama, respondent No. 2 in the writ petition and
G Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee, respondent No. I in the writ
petition, preferred Letters Patent Appeals against the decision of the learned
single Judge. The Division Bench of the High Court, after meticulously
.
examining the material on record, held that there was no confusion regarding
the date of meeting as the total number of members was only 50. It also held
H that the allegation that 15 members did not participate in the meeting because
AVTAR SINGfl fllT •·. DELHI SIKH GURDWARA MANAGEMENT COMMITrEE [G.P. MATHUR. J.J) 25

of any alleged confusion could not be believed, more so in the light of the A
findings of the learned single Judge that the elections were validly summoned.
It was further held that as more than 2/3rd members were present and had
elected the office bearers of the Executive Board, the result of the election
had not been materially effected and, therefore, the order passed by the
learned single Judge countermanding and setting aside the election could not B
be sustained. The Division Bench did not go into the question regarding the
effect of non-joinder of the newly elected members of the Executive Board
to the writ petition but expressed a prima facie view that its effect was not
fatal. It further held that despite the alternative remedy of election petition
being available, the writ petitions were maintainable.

13. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that there was
c
utter confusion regarding the date of the meeting in which the new office
bearers of the Executive Board had to be elected. Initially Shri Ravinder
Singh Khurana, Secretary, sent a communication dated 28. I I .2005 stating
that the meeting shall be convened on 19.12.2005 but the President Shri
Paramjit Singh Sama sent a letter on 8.12.2005 disputing the authority of the D
Secretary to convene a meeting. He reiterated on 12.12.2005 that no meeting
shall be held on 19.12.2005 and thereafter convened a meeting of all members
on 15.12.2005 to discuss the issue and fix a date for holding of the election.
The President subsequently fixed 7.1.2006 and then 18.1.2006 for the purpose
of holding the meeting. The Secretary, later on took a different stand and sent E
telegrams to all the members of the Committee on 18.12.2005 cancelling the
date earlier fixed by him and confirming the date fixed by the President, i.e.,
18.1.2006. It has thus been submitted that the contradictory stand taken by
the President and the Secretary and the confusion created thereby, the election
<
> held on 19.12.2005 was a farce and the learned single Judge had rightly
countermanded the same. F
14. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there was
no confusion as the Secretary had sent a communication on 28.11.2005 for
holding the election on 19.12.2005. Though initially the President Shri Paramjit
Singh Sarna had challenged the authority of the Secretary to fix the date for

- convening the meeting, but subsequently he had himself intimated that the G
meeting shall be held on 19.12.2005, as originally scheduled. Learned counsel
has further submitted that the fact that 35 out of 50 members participated in
the meeting and unanimously elected office bearers of the Executive Board
by more than 2/3rd majority itself demonstrated that there was no confusion
' and the election was properly held. Learned counsel has also submitted that H
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A at any rate in view of the contradictory stand and divergent points of view
projected by the rival parties, it was not a fit case for interference by this
Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

15. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties. The pleadings of the parties and also the
B material placed in the writ petition clearly show that there is a factual dispute.
Whether some members of the Committee could not participate in the meeting
on account of the alleged confusing and contradictory stand taken by the
President and the Secretary is a question of fact. The writ petitioner Shri
Avtar Singh Hit has specifically averred that he was keen to contest for the
C office of the President but on account of the alleged confusion regarding the
date of the meeting he could not participate in the same.

16. Part V of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act deals with Settlement of
Election and Other Disputes. Sections 31 and 33 of the Act, which find place
in Part V, read as under: -
D "31. The provision of sections 15, 16, 17, I&, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25,
27, 28, 29 and 30 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957,
shall mutatis mutandis apply, subject to such modifications as the
Central Government may by order direct, in relation to settlement of
dispute regarding election, corrupt practices and electoral offences in
E respect of election or co-option of members of the Committee.

33. (I) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the District
Judge may, within sixty days of the order, prefer an appeal to the
High Court at Delhi and the orders of the High Court on such appeal
shall be final and conclusive.
F
(2) The provisions of sections 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963,
shall, so far as may be, apply to appeals under this section."

Sections 15 to 20 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the DMC Act') provide for resolution of disputes regarding

-
G elections by filing an election petition. Sections 15 and 16 of the DMC Act
read as under:-

"15. Election petitions.- (1) No election of a councilor shall be
called in question except by an election petition presented to the
court of the district judge of Delhi within fifteen days from the date
H
AVfAR SINGH Hlh. DELHI SIKH GURDWARA MANAGEMENT COMMITIEE [G.P. MAlllUR, J.lJ2 7

of the publication of the result of the election under section 14. A
(2) An election petition calling in question any such election may be
presented under any of the grounds specified in section 17 by any
candidate at such election, by any elector of the ward concerned or
by any councilor.
B
(3) A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition all the
candidates at the election.

(4) An election petition-
(a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on C
which the petitioner relies;
(b) shall, with sufficient particulars, set forth the ground or
grounds on which the election is called in question; and
(c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner
laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5of1908), for D
the verification of pleadings.
16. Relief that may be claimed by the petitioner.- (I) A petitioner
may claim-

(a) a declaration that the election of al.I or any of the returned E
candidates is void, and

(b) in addition thereto, a further declaration that he himself or
any other candidate has been duly elected.

(2) The expression "returned candidate" means a candidate whose
name has been published in the Official Gazette under section 14. F
Section 17 of the DMC Act gives grounds for declaring the elections to be
void. Section 19 of the DMC Act lays down powers of the District Judge
which includes the power to declare the election of all or any of the returned
candidates to be void. Section 22 of the DMC Act defines corrupt practices G
for the purpose of the Act Thus a complete machinery for settlement of
election disputes is provided in the DMC Act which provisions by virtue of
Section 31 of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act are applicable for settlement of
disputes regarding elections under the said Act

17. It is well settled principle that where elections are conducted in H
accordance with the provisions of a statute and the statute also provides a
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A remedy of settlement of election disputes by filing an election petition before
a tribunal, it is that remedy alone which should be availed of and recourse
cannot be taken to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. This
view has been taken in series of decisions rendered by this Court. The earliest
decision was rendered in NP. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer AIR
B (1952) SC 64 by a Bench of six learned Judges. In this case the nomination
paper of the appellant for election to Madras Legislative Assembly was rejected
by the Returning Officer. The appellant challenged the rejection of the
nomination paper by filing a writ petition in the High Court which was
dismissed on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order
of the Returning Officer on account of Article 329(b) of the Constitution,
C which says that no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or
either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except
by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may
be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature. In
appeal this Court examined the question whether the writ petition would be
D maintainable at the initial stage against an order rejecting the nomination
paper. Certain observations made in para 9 of the reports are relevant and
they are being reproduced below:-

"The law of elections in India does not contemplate that there
should be two attacks on matters connected with election proceedings,
E one while they are going on by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction
of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution (the ordinary
jurisdiction of the Courts having been expressly excluded), and another
after they have been completed by means of an election petition. Any
matter which has the effect of vitiating an election should be brought
up only at the appropriate stage in an appropriate manner before a
F special tribunal and should not be brought up at an intermediate stage
before any Court .............................."

In para 12 it was observed:-

"Where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a
G special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute
only must be availed of.

It will be a fair inference from the provisions of the Representation
of the People Act to draw that the Act provides for only one remedy,
that remedy being by an election petition to be presented after the
H election is over, and there is no remedy provided at any intermediate :
A VT AR SINGH HIT 1·. DELHI SIKH GURDWARA MANAGEMENTCOMMIHEE [G.P. MATHUR.JJ329

stage." A
In Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, AIR (1978)
SC 851, it was held that if during the process of election, at any intermediate
or final stage, the entire poll has been wrongly cancelled and a fresh poll has
been wrongly ordered, that is a matter which may be agitated after declaration
of the result on the basis of the fresh poll, by questioning the election in the B
appropriate forum by means of an election petition in accordance with law.

The same view has been taken in regard to the elections held in
accordance with some statutory provision where Article 329(b) of the
Constitution is not applicable and they are not governed by Representation
of the People Act. In K.K. Shrivastava v. Bhupendra Kumar Jain, AIR (1978) C
SC 1703, the dispute related to election to Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh
under the Indian Advocates Act and Rule 3 I of Election Rules framed by Bar
Council of Madhya Pradesh provided that all disputes arising under the Rule
shall be decided by a tribunal to be known as an election tribunal. The
defeated candidate approached the High Court under Article 226 of the D
Constitution challenging the validity of the election which was allowed by
the High Court. This Court set aside the judgment of the High Court with the
following observations:-

"Where there is an appropriate or equally efficacious remedy the
Court should keep its hands off. This is more particularly so where E
the dispute relates to an election. Still more so where there is a
statutorily prescribed remedy which almost reads in mandatory terms.

In Gujarat University v. Shri N.U. Rajguru, AIR (1988) SC 66, the
dispute related to election to the Court of Gujarat University. Some teachers
challenged the holding of elections by means of a writ petition before the F
High Court which was allowed. In appeal this Court set aside the judgment
of the High Court with the following observations: -

"It is well settled that where a statute provides for election to an
office, or an authority or institution and if it further provides a
machinery or forum for determination of dispute arising out of election, G
the aggrieved person should pursue his remedy before the forum
provided by the statute. While considering an election dispute it must
be kept in mind that the right to vote, contest or dispute election is
neither a fundamental or common law right instead it is a statutory
right regulated by the statutory provisions. It is not permissible to H
invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A Constitution by-passing the machinery designated by the Act for
determination of the election dispute. Ordinarily the remedy provided
by the statute must be followed before the authority designated therein.
But there may be cases where exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances may exist to justify by-passing the alternative remedies."

B There are several other decisions where the same view has been taken.
S. T Muthusami v. K. Natarajan, AIR (1988) SC 616 is a case relating to
election to the office of Chairman of a panchayat union under the Tamil
Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958 where it was held that the parties who are
aggrieved by thf. result of the election can question the validity of an election
C by an election petition which is an effective alternative remedy and it is not
appropriate for the High Court to interfere with the election process.

C. Suhrahmanyam v. K. Ramanjaneyullu, [1998] 8 SCC 703 is a case
relating to election under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act and in a
short judgment it was observed that the main question for decision being the
D non-compliance of a provision of the Act which is a ground for an election
petition in Rule 12 framed under the Act, the writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution should not have been entertained for this purpose.

In Ashok Kumar Jain v. Neetu Kathoria, [2004] 12 SCC 73, a writ
petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the election
E held under Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972. This Court
observed that Section 66-A of the said Act provided that an election under
the Act could be challenged only by presenting an election petition and
except in some exceptional extraordinary circumstances normally remedy
under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the election by filing a writ
F petition would not be available.

Umesh Shivappa Amhi v. Angadi Shekara Basappa [1998] 4 SCC 529
is a case relating to election of President, Vice-President and Chairman, etc.,
under the Kamataka Cooperative Societies Act, wherein the High Court in a
writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution set aside the order by
G which the nomination of the first respondent therein was rejected. This Court
reversed the judgment of the High Court with the following observation:-

"Once an election is over, the aggrieved candidate has to pursue
his remedy in accordance with the provisions of law and the High
Court will not ordinarily interfere with the elections under Article
H 226. The High Court will not ordinarily interfere where there is an
AVTAR SINGH HIT r. DELHI SIKH GURDWARA MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE [G.P. MATHUR, J.J] 3 J

appropriate or equally efficacious remedy available, particularly in A
relation to election disputes."

Similar view has been taken in Harnek Singh v. Charan) it Singh, [2005]
8 SCC 383 which is a case relating to election of Chairman of Gram Panchayat
and the judgment of the High Court by which the order of the Returning
Officer was set aside in a writ petition was reversed. B
18. As discussed earlier the pleadings of the parties show that the
dispute raised was purely factual in nature as to whether some confusion had
been created regarding the date fixed for holding of the meeting of the
Committee for electing the office bearers of the Executive Board. The dispute C
could more appropriately be resolved by examination of oral evidence to be
led by the parties. The writ petitioner Avtar Singh Hit claimed that on account
of the confusion in dates he could not attend the meeting though he was very
keen to participate in the meeting and contest for the office of the President
of the Executive Board. In view of the nature of the dispute raised the proper
remedy for the petitioner was to file an election petition as provided in D
Section 31 of the Act where parties could have got opportunity to lead oral
evidence. No exceptional or extraordinary circumstances were disclosed which
could justify recourse to the extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the
Constitution and for not availing the remedy provided by the statute. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that on the facts and circumstances of the present E
case, the writ petitions ought not to have been entertained for resolving the
dispute relating to election and on this count alone the writ petitions were
liable to be dismissed.

19. The respondents in their counter affidavits, which were filed before
the High Court, took a specific plea that the new office bearers of the Executive F
Board, who had been elected in the meeting held on 19.12.2005, had taken
charge and were functioning. In all the four writ petitions, the office bearers
of the newly elected Executive Board were not made part!es. On the contrary
Shri Paramjit Singh Sarna and Shri Ravinder Singh Khurana, who were the
President and the Secretary respectively of the earlier Executive Board, were G
arrayed as respondents to the writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of respondent No. 2 to the writ petition a specific plea was taken that
the office bearers of the newly elected Executive Board had not been impleaded
as respondents to the writ petition and their rights would be adversely affected
if any relief is granted to the writ petitioner. In spite of such clear assertion
in the counter affidavit, the writ petitioner did not choose to implead the H
332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A newly elected office bearers of the Executive Board.
20. In our view no relief could have been granted to the writ petitioner ·
on account of the fact that the newly elected office bearers of the Executive
Board. who would have been affected by the decision of the writ petitions,
B were not impleaded as party to the writ petitions. In Udit Narain Singh
Malpaharia v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar AIR (1963) SC
786, it was observed that where in a petition for a writ of certiorari made to
the High Court, only the tribunal whose order was sought to be quashed was
made a party but the persons who were parties before the lower tribunal and
in whose favour the impugned order was passed were not joined as parties;
C the writ petition was incompetent and had been rightly rejected by the High
Court. In Prabodh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR (1985) SC 167, it
was held:-

"A High Court ought not to hear and dispose of a writ petition
under Article 226 without the persons who would be vitally affected
D by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least some of
them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if
their number is too large to join them as respondents individually,
and, ifthe petitioners refuse to so join them, the High Court ought to
dismiss the petition for non-joinder of necessary parties."
E In Ishwar Singh v. Ku/dip Singh & Ors.. [I 995] Supp. I SCC 179, it
was held that a writ petition challenging selection and appointment to some
posts without impleading the selected candidates was not maintainable. This
view has been reiterated in Arun Tewari & Ors. v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak
Sangh & Ors., AIR ( 1998) SC 331.
F
21. This being the settled legal position the non-impleadment of the
newly elected office bearers of the Executive Board was fatal and no relief
could have been granted to the writ petitioners. The result of granting any
relief in the writ petitions, as was done by the learned single Judge, was that
the members of the newly elected Executive Board lost the office which they
G were holding without affording them an opportunity to present their case
which is clearly impermissible in law. The writ petitions were liable to be
dismissed on this count as well.

22. Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned senior counsel for the appellant has
H submitted that absence of notice to even one member may vitiate the
proceedings of the meeting which was convened on I9.12.2005 and in the
AVTAR SINGH HIT r. DELHI SIKH GURDWARA MANAGEMENT COMM IHEE (G.1'. MATHUR, J.J J 33

present case some members were not served with the statutory notice. It is A
not necessary for us to examine this question as we have held above that the
writ petitions filed by the appellants herein were not maintainable having
regard to the controversy raised which was purely factual in nature and could
more appropriately be decided in an election petition which remedy was
provided by the Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act and also on the ground that the B
writ petition was not competent as necessary parties were not impleaded as
respondents to the same.

23. For the reasons discussed above, we find no merit in these appeals,
which are hereby dismissed with costs.

N.J. Appeal dismissed.