D. P. WADHWA ( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee through its President for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Committee to produce the records of the proceedings of the meetings of the Committee dated 10 May 1994 and 21 May 1994, also the resolution No. 9 dated 26 May 1994. Respondent is also sought to be restrained from taking any further action in pursuance to the aforesaid meetings, and the resolution. A writ of mandamus is also sought requiring the respondent to restore the Committees and Governing Bodies of the colleges and schools as were functioning on 9 May 1994. ( 2 ) THERE are five petitioners who are members of the Sikh community. The Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1971, (for short the Act ) was enacted to provide for the proper management of the Sikh Gurdwaras and Gurdwara property in Delhi and for matters connected therewith. As per the minutes of the meeting of the Committee dated 10 May 1994 Acting Jathedar Akal Takht Sahib announced on the request of all the members of the Committee that w. e. f. 10 May 1994 whole of the Executive Board of the respondent and all Governing Bodies of the schools and colleges and all sub-committees stood dissolved which was accepted by the members unanimously. 34 members of the Committee attended this meeting. In the minutes till the formation of the new committee (board) certain procedure was laid down. The minutes of this date further record that in writing and with request of a 11 the members all rights were given to Acting Jathedar Akal Takht Sahib to nominate office bearers and executive members for the current year to which the members said they would abide by his orders and they undertook that they would not make any objection to the nominated committee and orders of Acting Jathedar Akal Takhat Sahib and would not create any hindrance in any manner. It was also resolved that nobody would object to the decision of the Acting Jathedar Akal Takhat Sahib and nobody would go to the court of law, and that in any case if any member had moved any court on 10 May 1994 he should withdraw the case. It was also resolved that nobody would object to the decision of the Acting Jathedar Akal Takhat Sahib and nobody would go to the court of law, and that in any case if any member had moved any court on 10 May 1994 he should withdraw the case. It was also announced by the Acting Jathedar Akal Takhat Sahib in this meeting on 10 May 1994 that on 21 May 1994 at 11. 00 A. M. he would announce the decision in the General House. In the meanwhile, a writ petition, being CWP No. 2219/94, was filed in this Court on 20 May 1994 by Mr. Jasbir Singh and another against the respondent and others seeking stay of holding of meeting dated 21 May 1994. A Division Bench of this Court passed the following order on 20 May 1994 itself whereby the petition was dismissed as withdrawn : 20. 5. 94. Present: Mr. R. K. Anand, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Muneesh Malhotra and Mr. Lovkesh Sawhney for the petitioner. CWP No. 2219/94 and C. M. 4533/94: Mr. G. S. Vohra along with S/sh. M. S. Vohra, A. P. S. Ahluwalia and H. S. Phoolka enter appearance for Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Prabhandhak Committee, respondent No. l stating that they are appearing under instructions of Manager of the Committee. The learned counsel appearing for both the sides press for an early hearing of the matter at least on the question of interim relief. We would like to hear the respondents 2 to 4. Let notice issue to respondents 2, 3 and 4 in the main petition as well in the C. M. , returnable on 24th May, 1994. Service DASTI. At this stage, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 states that the respondents do not object to election being held tomorrow at 11. 00 A. M. , which will be conducted by Sardar Kirpal Singh Sangatpuri, respondent No. 2 and held in accordance with law, i. e, the provisions of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Committee Act, 1971. In view of that statement the learned counsel for the petitioner withdraws the petition. Dismissed as withdrawn. Copy of the order be given dasti to the counsel for both the parties. ( 3 ) THE petitioners now before us were not the petitioners in that writ petition and, it appears, Sardar Kirpal Singh Sangatpuri, President, was also not a party there. Dismissed as withdrawn. Copy of the order be given dasti to the counsel for both the parties. ( 3 ) THE petitioners now before us were not the petitioners in that writ petition and, it appears, Sardar Kirpal Singh Sangatpuri, President, was also not a party there. It is stated that he was informed of this order late in the evening and the following day at 9 A. M. he issued a communication addressed to the Manager of the respondent informing him that the meeting of the Committee proposed to be held on 21 May 1994 at 11,00 A. M. stood cancelled and that further information for calling of the meeting of the Committee in accordance with the rules and regulations under the Act shall be called in due course. There is a great deal of controversy if this letter cancelling the meeting was at all received by the Manager of the respondent and brought to the notice of the members of the Committee. It appears that the meeting was held on 21 May 1994 in the absence of the President and even Senior Vice President. Minutes of the meeting show that as many as 31 members of the Committee were present and Bhaiya Gurbachan Singh, Vice President, was elected to preside over the meeting. Announcement of the Acting Jathedar Akal Takhat Sahib was recorded wherein he mentioned that he had been invited by S. Kirpal Singh Sangatpuri, President of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, on 10 May 1994 to attend the General House and accordingly he was present. He said that on protest by all the members that annual election due for 2 September 1994 had not been held which was against the law, and that all the 34 members had in writing empowered him to elect the new office bearers and executive members in the General House fixed for 21 May 1994 at 11. 00 A. M. , and that all the powers were delegated to him. He further said that it was also undertaken by all the members that no member would go to any court of law directly or indirectly and differences if any amongst them would be resolved amicably. Thereafter, the minutes record the proceedings of proposal and nomination of the President, Senior Vice President, Vice President, General Secretary, Joint Secretary and other members of the Executive Board. Thereafter, the minutes record the proceedings of proposal and nomination of the President, Senior Vice President, Vice President, General Secretary, Joint Secretary and other members of the Executive Board. The minutes also record that immediately after the election of the Mr. Manjeet Singh Calcutta as President Bhaiya Gurbachan singh handed over his charge to him and allowed Mr. Calcutta to go ahead with further proceedings of the meeting. The elections of the Senior Vice President, Vice President and other office bearers and members of the Executive Board were held under the Presidentship of Mr. Calcutta. The minutes of 21 May 1994 are also signed by the newly elected President and the General Secretary. ( 4 ) THERE is a challenge also to the resolution No. 9 dated 26 May 1994 whereunder governing bodies of various schools and colleges were constituted on 6 June 1994. ( 5 ) NOW a brief look at some of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras (Election of Pro Tempore Chairman, President, other Office Bearers and Members of the Executive Board) Rules, 1974 (for short the Rules ). TheCommittee is constituted under section 3 of the Act, and section 4 gives the composition of the Committee. 46 members are to be elected from various wards into which Delhi shall be divided. Nine members to be co-opted by the elected members of the Committee and out of these, four members each being the head priest of (1) Sri Akal Takhat Sahib, Amritsar, (2) Sri Takhat Kesgarh Sahib, Anandpur, (3) Sri Takhat Patna Sahib, Patna, and (4) Shri Takhat Hazur Sahib, Nanded. But these head priests have no right of vote for the purpose of election of office bearers and other members of the Executive Board. In this petition we are not concerned with the term of office of the Committee. We may note that the Committee under section 3 of the Act shall be a body corporate with the name "the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee" having perpetual succession and a common seal and shall by such name sue and be sued. In "director Gurdwara Elections" shall vest the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, elections of members of the Committee. This is section 2 (e) read with section 13 of the Act. In "director Gurdwara Elections" shall vest the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, elections of members of the Committee. This is section 2 (e) read with section 13 of the Act. Sections 14 and 15 of the Act respectively deal with first meeting of the elected members and the first meeting of the Comittee. Under sub-section (4) of section 15, the members of the Committee shall elect from amongst themselves a pro tempore Chairman, in such manner as may be prescribed by rules, who shall preside at the meeting until the committee elects the President. Section 16 deals with election of office-bearers. After the election of the pro tempore Chairman, the Committee shall elect a President who shall conduct the election of the office bearers and members of the Executive Board. Then the Committee shall elect from amongst its members a Senior Vice President, Junior Vice President, General Secretary and Joint Secretary which are called the office bearers of the Committee,and shall at the same meeting in like manner also elect ten of its members of the Executive Board of the Committee, and the office bearers and the members so elected shall be the Executive Board of the Committee. Sub-section (5) and (6) of section 16 read as under :- " (5) The President and other members of the Executive Board elected under sub-section (1) of sub- section (2) shall hold office for a term of one year but shall be eligible for re-election for one more term only; Provided that an outgoing office-bearer or member shall continue in office until election of his successor is held. (6) The election of the President and other office-bearers and members of the Executive Board under sub-section (1) of 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 21 provides for the powers of the Executive Board and its office- bearers. (6) The election of the President and other office-bearers and members of the Executive Board under sub-section (1) of 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 21 provides for the powers of the Executive Board and its office- bearers. It says that the Executive Board shall exercise on behalf of the Committee all powers conferred on the Committee by the provisions of the Act which are not expressly reserved to be exercised by the Committee in general meeting, and the President or any other office- bearer of the Executive Board may exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be prescribed by regulations or as may, from time to time, be delegated by the Executive Board. We have not been shown any resolution which prescribes the powers and duties of the President or other office-bearers of the Executive Board. Section 24 defines the powers and functions of the Committee. Part V of the Act provides for election disputes and the jurisdiction of the District Court, and the appeals from the decision of the District Court to the High Court. Under section 40 of the Act, the Committee has powers to make regulations. ( 6 ) PART II of the Rules provides for election of a pro tempore Chairman, and Part III for election of President, other office bearers and members of the Executive Board. Part IV of the Rules deals with dispute regarding election. ( 7 ) THE respondent in its counter-affidavit has denied the allegations contained in the petition. It is stated that the elections to the Executive Board were held on 21 May 1994 in accorance with law, and also the election of the office-bearers and members was unanimous. It is submitted that the elections were held in accordance with the Act and the Rules, and further that the three members who were not present never objected to the elections, and further that the new Executive Board took over the charge on 21 May 1994 and had been working since then. It is submitted that the petition is not maintainable under rule 17 of the Rules and that election could be challenged only by an election petition. It is submitted that the petition is not maintainable under rule 17 of the Rules and that election could be challenged only by an election petition. The locus standi of the petitioners has also been challenged as it is stated that they are not members of the Committee, and that the election to the Executive Board is held inter se between the members of the Committee and only the members of the Committee could challenge the election. Letter dated 21 May 1994 issued by Mr. Kripal singh Sangatpuri, President, has been denied, and rather it is alleged that the document is a forged one, and that it was never sent and delivered. It was also submitted that there was no legal sanctity to this letter since it is purported to have been addressed to a Manager who is not even a member of the Committee. The bonafides of the petitioners in filing this petition has also been questioned. ( 8 ) A great deal of arguments were addressed on the maintainability of the petition itself with reference to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Various questions of law and facts have been thrown up for consideration. The petitioners strongly contended that the members of the Committee had abdicated their functions under the Act when they conferred powers on the Acting Jathedar to nominate office-bearers and the members of the Executive Board and the whole election process was a sham affair. It was also contended that in the absence of the President the meeting could not have been Presided over by the Junior Vice President, and there was no provision of any pro tempore Chairman for any meeting subsequent to the first meeting of the Committee. Petitioners further submitted that it is only in the first meeting of the Committee that after the President is elected he takes over and then conducts the election of other office-bearers and members of the Executive Board, but that provision did not apply to any subsequent meeting and a great illegality was committed when Mr. Calcutta, who was stated to have been elected as President, took over and then conducted the remaining election proceedings. As noted above, we have not been shown any regulation giving the powers of the President, Senior Vice President or the Junior Vice President. It was also contended that the President Mr. Calcutta, who was stated to have been elected as President, took over and then conducted the remaining election proceedings. As noted above, we have not been shown any regulation giving the powers of the President, Senior Vice President or the Junior Vice President. It was also contended that the President Mr. Kripal Singh Sangatpuri could not be held bound by the proceedings of 20 May 1994 in CWP No. 2219/94 as the election had to be conducted in accordance with law as per the order dated 20 May 1994. It was, however, not disputed that if the election was sham it was not necessary to challenge the election of the members by filing election petitions. ( 9 ) THE petitioners are not members of the Committee, and but for the minutes they would not be aware of the proceedings of 10 May 1994, 21 May 1994 and 26 May 1994. When dispute was raised about the genuineness of the communication dated 21 May 1994 sent by Mr. Kripal Singh Sangatpuri, the petitioners filed with their rejoinder the affidavit of Mr. Sangatpuri and also that of Mr. Gurdeep Singh Dua, member of the Committee. Mr. Sangatpuri in his affidavit stated that he was the President of the Committee till 21 May 1994, but his office had been illegally usurped by the new office bearers. He stated that he handed over the letter dated 21 May 1994 to Mr. Avtar Singh Hit, a member of the Committee, conveying the cancellation of the meeting to be held on 21 May 1994 as the meeting had not been fixed according to law as directed by the High Court. He said Mr. Avtar Singh Hit later on confirmed to him that he had handed over the said letter, as directed, to Mr. Ajit Singh, Manager of the Committee. Mr. Gurdeep Singh Dua says in his affidavit that he was also present in the meeting on 21 May 1994 and had pointed out the order of the Hon ble Court passed in Writ Petition No. 2219/94 when Mr. Avtar Singh Hit brought to the notice the contents of the notice cancelling the meeting for that date by Mr. Sangatpuri, President, but despite that the meeting was held. He said he and other participants objected to the meeting being contrary to the orders of the Hon ble High Court but his objection was ignored. Avtar Singh Hit brought to the notice the contents of the notice cancelling the meeting for that date by Mr. Sangatpuri, President, but despite that the meeting was held. He said he and other participants objected to the meeting being contrary to the orders of the Hon ble High Court but his objection was ignored. These two affidavits, if correct, would throw a great deal of doubt on the authenticity of the minutes. The respondents also filed the affidavit of Mr. Ajit Singh, the Manager. He denied having received any such letter dated 21 May 1994 from Mr. Sangatpuri cancelling the meeting of that date. ( 10 ) A great deal depends upon the facts of the case which facts are highly disputed. We are also not quite satisfied about the bonafide of the petitioners in filing this petition as it does appear to us that they have been put up as front men by some other persons who themselves do not want to come forward to challenge the elections. In a civil suit bonafides of the plaintiff may not be of any consideration, but in the writ jurisdiction it would be so. Moreover, many proceedings are pending either in this Court or in the District Court regarding the non-holding of election of the Committee, or the election of the office-bearers of the Executive Board of the Committee, and it does appear to us that various interim orders have been made in those proceedings. In a matter like this, therefore, we would not like to exercise our extraordinary writ jurisdiction and would relegate the petitioners to a civil suit, if they are so advised to file the same. Accordingly, we will dismiss this petition in limine. No costs.