JUDGMENT P.S. Sahay, J. This application has been filed for quashing three different orders, namely, Annexures 3, 7 & 9 of the District Judge, Patna, passed under the Constitution and Bylaws of Sri Takht Harimandir Jee, Patna Saheb, Patna City. By Annexure-3 dated 22.12.1979 he has approved election of eight member from different constituencies and also nominated three persons to the Committee in exercise of the power conferred under Article 9(1)(i) of the Constitution, by Annexure-7, dated 13.05.1980 he has approved the co-option of Sardar Harbhajan Singh which was made by the Prabandhak Committee on 20th April, 1980, and by Annexure-9 dated 26.05.1980 he has approved the election of the office bearers of the new Committee and has further directed the office bearers of the out going Prabandhak Committee, including the President and the General Secretary, to hand over charge of the officer in respect of the property to the new Committee. 2. Some facts have to be stated in order to appreciate the points raised in this application and all these facts are borne out from the materials on the record. There is an ancient Sikh religious Temple commonly known as Sri Takht Hrimandirji, Patna Saheb, Patna City, and it is here where the Tenth Guru of the Sikh Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji was born. Since the year 1955 the management and affairs of the Committee is being managed under the supervision and control of the District Judge, Patna and Constitution and Bylaws which was framed for running the said temple was approved by the District Judge on 16.5.1657. The term of the Prabandhak Committee expired some times in May, 1978, and in January, 1979 the District Judge Patna took necessary steps for holding the election. On 13.9.1979 the District Judge, Patna, passed order for holding election in presence of all the parties and with their consent. A copy of the order has been filed and marked Annexure-B/3. The elections were held and in one of the constituencies (North Bihar Constituency) two persons got three votes each and there was a lottery which was decided in favour of one Sarder Sant Singh. The defeated candidate, Sardar Kalyan Singh, filed a petition before the District Judge challenging the election of Sardar Sant Singh and it was admitted by the District Judge, Patna, on 4.12.1979. The defeated candidate, Sardar Kalyan Singh, filed a petition before the District Judge challenging the election of Sardar Sant Singh and it was admitted by the District Judge, Patna, on 4.12.1979. The District Judge, by his order dated 22.12.1979 as contained in annexure-3 approved the election of eight persons and nominated three and gave a direction that those eleven persons will form a new Committee and shall function and the result of the other constituencies will be kept pending. The jurisdiction of the District Judge to adjudicate the election dispute was challenged by Sardar Sant Singh in this Court and it was also urged that the Committee consists of fourteen persons and in absence of three the new Committee cannot function and, therefore, the direction given by the District Judge that the new Committee will function was wholly illegal and unjustified and this gave rise to C.W.J.C. 2 of 1980, which was decided on 23.5.1980 and it was held that the District Judge had ample power under the provisions of Constitution and Bylaws to adjudicate election disputes and members less than fifteen could form a Committee pending the adjudication of the election of other constituencies. On 17th March, 1980 the Prabandhak Committee and Sardar Jaswant Singh filed a writ application in this Court challenging the constitutional validity of some of the provisions of the Constitution and Bylaws and election rules of the Temple vesting powering the District Judge of Patna besides other orders. In that application it was urged that the nominations and elections were ultra-vires of Articles 26 and 30 of the Constitution of India and this gave rise to C.W.J.C. No. 698 of 1980. The application was admitted on 18.3.1980 but no stay was granted and 14.4.1980 was fixed for hearing which was also letter adjourned to different dates. There was a dispute relating to the nomination of Sikh nominee form Delhi Gurudwara and for that a Writ was filed in this Court by Sardar Jaswant Singh which gave rise to C.W.J.C. 137 of 1980 and Sardar Jaswant Singh Sethi, who claimed to be the nominee of Delhi Gurudwara, appeared in the case and he was also added as a party respondent. In that case a consent order was passed on 29.1.1980 in presence of all the parties that the District Judge should resolve the dispute expeditiously and the parties were also given direction to appear before him. In that case a consent order was passed on 29.1.1980 in presence of all the parties that the District Judge should resolve the dispute expeditiously and the parties were also given direction to appear before him. It was also ordered that the District Judge will give direction for convening a meeting of the newly elected and nominated members of the committee for co-option and thereafter the election of the office bearers should be held. Thereafter the Delhi Gurudwara management committee nominated Bibi Nirlep Kaur and the same was not challenged by any of the parties before the District Judge and therefore, by his order dated 21.2.1981, Annexure E/3, he approved the election of Bibi Nirlep Kaur and he gave a direction to the President of the Temple committee, Sardar Jaswant Singh Kochhar, to convene a meeting of the newly elected and nominated members of the committee for co-option under Article 9(1)(k) of the constitution and Bylaws and also to elect other office bearers within a week form that date as per direction given by this Court in C.W.J.C. 137 of 1980 on 29.1.1980. In pursuance of the aforesaid order the president of the committee convened a meeting of the Committee fixing 30th March, 1980 for the meeting of the Committee for co-option of one member, a copy of the notice has been filed and marked Anexure-4. On 26.3.1980 the President of the Committee sent a telegram followed by letter. Annexure-5 and 6, postponing the meeting to be held on 30th March, 1980. The reason for postponing the meeting has been given in paragraph 15 of the petition and also in the Letter, Annexure-6, in which it has been stated that a writ, C.W.J.C. 698 was pending in this Court and the result of that case would be a decisive factor in the matter relating to the election of the Prabandhak Committee and the case was not taken up for hearing and in that view of the matter, it was thought necessary by the President to postpone the meeting. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that a meeting of the committee was held on 30th March, 1980 which was attended by seven members and it was adjourned to 20.3.1980. On 20th of April, 1980, eight members attended and Sardar Harbhajan Singh was co-opted to the committee. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that a meeting of the committee was held on 30th March, 1980 which was attended by seven members and it was adjourned to 20.3.1980. On 20th of April, 1980, eight members attended and Sardar Harbhajan Singh was co-opted to the committee. This co-option was approved by the District Judge on 13.5.1980 as contained in Annexure-7. On 14.5.1980 there was a meeting of the elected, nominated and co-opted members in which new office bearers were elected and information was sent to the District Judge, Patna, who approved the election of the office bearers by his order dated 26.5.1980 and further directed the old office bearers to hand over charge to the new office bearers elected on 14.4.1980, a copy of the order is Annexure-9. The petitioner, who was the Secretary of the old committees, has com to this court for quashing Annexures-3, 7 and 9. 3. Mr. Basudeo Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the co-option held on 20.4.1980 and the approval given by the district judge by Annexure-7 was ultra-vires of rule 9(5) of the Constitution and By laws of the Temple. He has, further, submitted that the so called election held on 14.5.1980 was no election in the eye of law and the petitioner had no notice about the aforesaid meeting and, therefore, the election of the office bearers and approval given by the District Judge by Annexure-9 is fit to be quashed. The election has also been challenged on the ground that it was ultra vires of the Articles 26 and 30 of the Constitution of India, the point, which was raised in C.W.J.C. 698 of 1980. It may be mentioned here that the hearing of C.W.J.C. 698 of 1980 was concluded this case could not be taken up for hearing. A prayer was made on behalf of the parties that the judgment in C.W.J.C. 698 of 1980 may be deferred till the final hearing of this application because the constitutional point was also involved in this application, therefore, the decision in C.W.J.C. 698 of 1980 might prejudice the petitioner in this case. In that view of the matter, the judgment of C.W.J.C. 698 of 1980 was deferred till the final hearing of this application. 4. Mr. In that view of the matter, the judgment of C.W.J.C. 698 of 1980 was deferred till the final hearing of this application. 4. Mr. Prabha Shankar Mishra, appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents, has justified the holding of the meeting on 20.4.1980 and 14.5.1980 which, according to him, was perfectly valid and legal and also the approval for co-option and the election to the office bearers given by the District Judge. He has, further, submitted that the recall of the meeting by the former President is honest because the President was not elected to the new Committee and, therefore, he became functus officio. Mr. Prasad, however, challenged this contention raised by Mr. Mishra and has submitted that the president, who had the power to call a meeting under Article 9(5) of the Constitution, has also the power to cancel or postpone the meeting and once the meeting has been cancelled any meeting held thereafter will be illegal and the so called office bearers elected in those meetings have no legal sanctity and cannot be allowed to function. The learned Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the District Judge, has endorsed the submission made by Mr. Mishra and has also justified the holding of the two meetings in which co-option and election of office beares were held and has, further, submitted that except the petitioner no other member of the Committee has complained that no notice was given to them and in that view of the matter, the petitioner had also knowledge and he deliberately did not attend the meeting and being the Secretary was in collusion with the President who had recalled the meeting. 5. In support of his contention Mr. Prasad has relied on the cases in Md. Yunus Saleem v. Shiv Kumar Shastri and others. Amlendu Kumar vs. State of Bihar through Commissioner, Health, Bihar. Kutoor Vengayil Valia Madhavi & others, and Section 24 of the General Clauses Act. He has also referred to Blackwell Laws of Meetings 1967 Edition and has referred to pages 44 to 47 Mr. Mishra, on the other hand, has placed reliance in the cases of Bhola Prasad Singh vs. Prof U. A. Goswami & Others Venkatesh Yeshwant Deshpande vs. Emperor, Bakshi S.R.P. Sinha & others. Vs. the State of Bihar Bar Council and anothers. State of Bihar vs. D.N. Ganguly and Patel Narshi Thakershi and others vs. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji. Mishra, on the other hand, has placed reliance in the cases of Bhola Prasad Singh vs. Prof U. A. Goswami & Others Venkatesh Yeshwant Deshpande vs. Emperor, Bakshi S.R.P. Sinha & others. Vs. the State of Bihar Bar Council and anothers. State of Bihar vs. D.N. Ganguly and Patel Narshi Thakershi and others vs. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji. In view of the submissions the following points arise for consideration, (1) Whether the action of the President in recalling the meeting was legal and Justified; (2) Whether the meeting held on 30.3.1980 and 14.5.1980 in which one member was co-opted and office bearers were elected were valid meetings, and (3) Whether the petitioner had no notice of the meeting, as alleged by him. 6. From a brief resume of events, mentioned above, It is clear that after the election from the different constituencies to the Committee of the Temple wore over some persons did not want the new Committee should function and for that petitions after petitions were filed in this Court on some ground of the other. On the other hand, persons who were elected to the Committee were anxious that the new office bearers should be elected and should start functioning. In that background, after hearing all the parties, this Court, while hearing C.W.J.C. 137 of 1980 on 29.1.1980 (Annexure D/3), directed the District Judge to adjudicate and decide the dispute relating to the nomination of a member by Delhi Gurudwara within ten days and in that connection the parties were also directed to appear before him on 1.2.1980. The relevant portion of the order may be quoted which is as follow : "The parties who are represented before us will appear before the District lodge, Patna, on Friday the 1st February, 1980, and the District Judge will fix a date convenient to him within ton days from today, so that the matter may be diposed of, after that matter is decided, the Judge will give necessary direction to the petitioner to convene a meeting of the newly elected and nominated Members of the Prabandhak Committee for co-option or the Member of the category as contained in Article 9 (1) (k) of the Bylaws and election of the other office bearers, within a week from the date or directions of the District Judge. This application is accordingly disposed or with the above directions and with the consent or the parties. This application is accordingly disposed or with the above directions and with the consent or the parties. Let & copy or this order be handed over to learned Government Pleader for communication to the District Judge, Patna." It was not necessary to adjudicate the dispute regarding the nomination from Delhi Gurudwara because Bibi Nirlep Kaur was nominated by that Gurudwara and information to the effect was sent to the District Judge. The aforesaid nomination was approved by the District Judge on 21.1.1980 (Annexure-B/3) and it may be mentioned that there was no objection from any quarter. On the same day direction was given to the President Sardar Jaswant Singh Kochher (hereinafter referred to as Sardar Kochher) which is as follows : "Now In pursuance or the directives or the Hon'ble Court as conveyed to me vide consent order dated 29.1.1980 in C.W.J.C. No. 137 of 1980 necessary direction is hereby given to the outgoing president of Sri Tahht Harimandirji Patna Saheb, Sardar Jaswant Singh Kochher to convene a meeting of the newly elected and nominated members of the Prabandhak Committee for co-option of the member of the category as mentioned in Article 9 (1)(k) of the Constitution and Bylaws of Sri Takht Harimandirji Patna Saheb, and elect other office bearers within a week from this date. I have no option left nor the President of the outgoing Prabandhak Committee of Sri Harimandirji, Patna Saheb, who had ample opportunity to convene a meeting has any option now left but to abide by the specific directions as laid down by the Hon'ble High Court referred to above :" 7. It may be mentioned that the aforesaid direction was under 9 (sub-clause (5) of the Constitution which is as follow : “9 (5). The District Judge, Patna In due course, shall declare appointment of fourteen Dominated or elected members of the New Committee, if the nomination or election is not in any way unlawful and shall inform of the same to the existing committee in writing. The President of the existing Committee shall, as soon as may be, but not later than a month, call a meeting of the 14 newly appointed members for the purpose of co-opting the fifteenth member, referred to in Clause (k) above. The President of the existing Committee shall, as soon as may be, but not later than a month, call a meeting of the 14 newly appointed members for the purpose of co-opting the fifteenth member, referred to in Clause (k) above. At such a meeting, the president of the existing Committee shall Act, as the Convenor to got co-option of the 15th member done but be may not be the Chairman of the laid meeting unless be has been returned as member for the New Committee. The President of the outgoing Committee shall send a copy of the proceeding of the said meeting to the District Judge, Patna. The existing Committee shall however continue functioning of the Gurdwara affairs till the appointment of office bearers of the New Committee in its First Meeting or thereafter. The existing Committee shall prepare charge sheet of the valuables, cash, documents and papers. Stocks, etc. and handover the same to the office bearers appointed in the first meeting of the New Committee and form that day the functioning of the affairs of the Gurdwara, by the outgoing Committee shall cease and the control of the New Committee shall beign” In pursuance of the direction by the District Judge, meeting was called by the President on 7.3.1980 fixnig 30.3.1980 for the co-option of the members under Article 9 (1)(k) of the Constitution. Article 19 which is also relevant, may also be usefully quoted : "19. The first meeting of the New Committee shall be held at a time not later than one month after the District Judge, Patna has declared the appointment of the New Committee. This meeting shall be called by the President of the outgoing Committee by 21 days notice in writing served on every member of the New Committee but he shall neither be Chairman of the said meeting nor cast any vote in the election unless he is returned as member in the New Committee." Sardar Kochher cancelled the meeting on 26.3.1980 by lending telegrams and letters to other members. Reasons for the cancellation has been mentioned in the letter Annexure-6 wherein it is Stated that the constitutional validity regarding the election of the members of the Committee and the powers of the District Judge to interfere with the affairs of the Temple were under challenge in C.W.J.C. 698 or 1980 and 18.4.1980 was the date fixed for hearing and, therefore, in his opinion it was desirable and proper to postpone the meeting fixed for 30th March, 1980 till the disposal of the aforesaid writ application in this court. In view of the consent order passed by this Court on 29.1.1980 for holding the election of the office bearers at an early date followed by the order of the District Judge on 21.2.1980, the action of Sardar Kochher in canceling the meeting was illegal and highly improper. Here it may be mentioned that Sardar Kochher was not re-elected to the New Committee and be very well knew that after the election of new office bearers his office as President will come to an end. If he was really anxious to get the hearing of C.W.J.C. 698 of 1980 before the election of the office bearers, he should have brought the matter to the notice of this Court and got our Order passed on 29.1.1980 modified in Presence of all the parties. He also never cared to move the District Judge, under whose direction the meeting was called, and without taking the other members of the Committee into confidence, acting on his own issued notice for the cancellation of the meeting. He was holding the post of President for a good number of years and he was well aware of the Constitution and By laws of the Temple, specially Article 9(5) and 19, which have been quoted above, where there is a time bound programme and the election has to be completed within one month. All these clearly indicate that be wanted to continue as President though his term expired long long ago and as I have said earlier, he was not elected to the new Committee. Thus, I am of the view that the action of Sardar Kochher in postponing the meeting in which be had no part to play after calling the meeting was without any legal sanction and, therefore, must be held to be nonsuit. Thus, I am of the view that the action of Sardar Kochher in postponing the meeting in which be had no part to play after calling the meeting was without any legal sanction and, therefore, must be held to be nonsuit. Persons acting illegally, arbitrarily and contrary to the directions of the Court cannot assume powers under the Constitution and Bylaws which are meant for managing the affairs of the Temple, for good of the Temple and for those who are interested in the welfre of the Temple. A person calling meeting will ordinarily have the authority to recall the meeting. The President of the existing Committee under Article 9 (5) is required to call the meeting alter the District Judge has declared the appointment of fourteen nominated or elected member of the new Committee if the nomination or election is not in any way unlawful and shall inform of the lame to the existing Committee in writing. It is thereafter that the President of the existing Committee is to call a meeting not later a month of the newly appointed or elected members for the purpose of co-option of the members of the category 9(1)(k). The President of the outgoing Committee can preside over the newly elected members provided be has been elected to the New Committee also. It is thus manifest that the president of the existing Committee bas no role to play in the meeting for co-opting members under Article 9 (1) (k) or election of the office bearers unless he is elected as a member to the New Committee. It is thus apparent that such a President having called the meeting in the given situation should not recall the meeting on the ground of pendency of C.W.J.C. No. 698 of 1980, which was fixed for hearing on 18.4.1980. The proper course would have been to move the District Judge for a proper direction in this regard if the President genuinely felt that the meeting should be postponed, or, for the matter of that to move this Court for appropriate orders in this regard in the pending writ case. The proper course would have been to move the District Judge for a proper direction in this regard if the President genuinely felt that the meeting should be postponed, or, for the matter of that to move this Court for appropriate orders in this regard in the pending writ case. In such a situation, If the majority of members of the Committee ignored the notice of cancellation and held meeting on 30th March, 1980, and on subsequent dates, It is not open to the petitioner a Secretary of the previous Committee and a member of the newly elected Committee to challenge that, In view of the fact that he was a party to the consent order In C.W.J.C. No. 137 of 1980 disposed of on 29th January, 1980 (vide Annexure D/3). It is therefore, not necessary to consider the case laws cited by the parties in this case on the point of cancellation of meeting. 8. Now I take up the next point for consideration whether the meetings held au 30.3.1980 and 14.5.1980 were valid meetings. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the contesting respondents, it has been stated that melting was held on 30.3.1980 and seven members out of eleven attended the same and it was unanimously adjourned to 20.4.1980 on that date eight members attended and Sardar Harbhajan Singh was co-opted to the Committee and, thereafter, it was adjourned to 14.5.1980 for transacting other business. Nine member attended the meeting held on 14.5.1980 and new office bearers were elected for the Temple, a copy of the proceeding of the aforesaid meeting was sent to the District Judge, respondent No.1. The co-option held on 20.4.1980 was approved by the District Judge on 13.5.1980 and the relevant portion of the order of the District Judge is al follows : - “No objection has been received till now from any quarter about the co-option of Sardar Harbhajan Singh and as such the co-option is approved.” The District Judge also approved the election of the office bearers on 26.5.1980 in which it has also been held that no stay order was passed by this Court in (C.W.J.C. 698 of 1980 and, therefore, the outgoing President meaning thereby Sardar Koochher had no authority to postpone the meeting convened for 30.3.1980. Thus, it will be seen that out of eleven members of the Committee seven attended on 30.3.1980 eight on 24.2.1980 and, nine on 14.5.1980. Under Article 27 the quorum of the Committee for transacting any business in the meeting is five and under Article 25 it may be mentioned that five persons can convene a meeting of the Committee. Thus, it is clear that majority of the members had attended the meeting held on 20.4.1980 and 14.5.1980 in which business were transacted. In my opinion, the meetings were validly held and can by no stretch of imagination be said to be illegal meetings and as I have said earlier the proceeding of both the meetings were also approved by the District Judge in presence of the parties. 9. Now it remains to be considered whether the petitioner had notice of the meeting held on 20.4.1980 and 15.5.1980 which he has denied in his application. It may be mentioned that the petitioner was the Central Secretary of the old Committee of which Sardar Kochher was the President. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the contesting respondents on 21.1.1981, it has been stated that after the meeting was adjourned on 30.3.1980 notices to the petitioner for the meeting for 20.4.1980, were sent on 4.4.1980 and it was received by the petitioner on 12.4.1980. On that date the petitioner wrote a registered letter to the Administrator of the Temple stating therein that he had received a notice of the meeting to be held on 20.4.1980. He had, further, directed that the conference, room and the iron gate of the building should be locked and the minute book should be kept under the lock and key in order to avoid any untoward incident a copy of this letter addressed to the Administrator has been filed as Annexure-I/3. Similarly, registered notice was sent to the petitioner for the meting to be held on 14.5.1980, and it was delivered to the petitioner at Calcutta on 12.5.1980 and a true copy of the acknowledgement card has been filed, marked Annexnre-J/3. All these clearly Indicates that the petitioner had notice of the two meetings and if he failed to attend the same he himself was at fault and be cannot make any capital out of it. Thus the contention that the petitioner had no knowledge of the meetings must be rejected. 10. All these clearly Indicates that the petitioner had notice of the two meetings and if he failed to attend the same he himself was at fault and be cannot make any capital out of it. Thus the contention that the petitioner had no knowledge of the meetings must be rejected. 10. I have also indicated earlier that the petitioner had also raised the point of Constitutional validity relying on Articles 26 and 30 of the Constitution of India and had also challenged the vires of the Constitution and Bylaws of the Temple. This point was argued in great detail by the learned lawyer, appearing on behalf of the parties, in C.W.J.C. No. 698; the judgment of which has been kept ending for this case, in which it has been held that there was no interference whatsoever regarding religious matters relating to the affairs of the Temple which are clearly distinguishable form secular matter and thus, there was no substance in those points and the Articles were also not ultra vires of the Constitution of India. 11. Thus, on a careful consideration of the points, which have been raised in this application, I find that there is no merit in this application which is, accordingly, dismissed. The parties will bear their own cost. K.B.N. Singh, C.J. I agree. Application dismissed.