Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 612 (PNJ)

Manjit Singh Calcutta etc. v. SGPC Amritsar etc.

2001-05-28

V.K.JHANJI

body2001
JUDGMENT V.K. Jhanji, J. - Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (hereinafter referred to as SGPC) is providing financial aid to a number of educational institutions. One of the institutions run by it was charitable hospital known as Sri Guru Ram Dass Medical and Research Institute, Amritsar. The executive committee of the SGPC in its meeting held on 26.1.1992 at Anandpur Sahib, resolved through a resolution that the control and management of the said hospital be passed on to irrevocable charitable trust to be created under the supervision of Shri G.S. Tohra, the then President of SGPC, Amritsar. In pursuance of the resolution, trust known as Sri Guru Ram Dass Hospital Charitable Trust was created on 15.12.1992 vide a registered trust-deed. Paragraph 4 of the trust-deed deals with composition of Board of Trustees. In accordance with Paragraph 4 of the trust-deed, Board of trustees was constituted. The Board of Trustees in its meeting dated 6.4.1993 held under the chairmanship of Shri G.S. Tohra, passed resolution inter alia appointing Dr. Hardas Singh as Vice-Chairman of the Trusts and Sh. Manjit Singh Calcutta as Member Secretary of the same. Resolutions were also passed for transferring accounts and FDRs in the name of Sri Guru Ram Dass Hospital Charitable Trust and for operating the same. 2. The first term of the trustees was to expire on 11.3.1999. According to the petitioners, in the meeting of the general house of SGPC held on 23.10.1998, vide resolution No. 38 Shri G.S. Tohra, the then President was authorised to appoint Trustees for the next term of six years. Further, according to the petitioners, Shri G.S. Tohra, nominated the petitioners as trustees on 16.1.1999. Petitioners have alleged that meeting of the new Board of Trustees was held on 13.3.1999 at Amritsar and certain resolutions were passed vide which Dr. Hardas Singh was appointed as Vice-President and Sh. Manjit Singh Calcutta as Member Secretary. Resolutions were also passed regarding budget and operating of accounts of different educational institutions. Further, according to the petitioners, in December, 1998, political differences arose between Shri Parkash Singh Badal, Chief Minister of Punjab and Shri G.S. Tohra, President, SGPC. The case of the petitioners is that Shri G.S. Tohra resigned as President of SGPC on 15.3.1999 whereas the case of respondents 1 to 4 is that No Confidence Motion was passed against him on 16.3. 1999. The case of the petitioners is that Shri G.S. Tohra resigned as President of SGPC on 15.3.1999 whereas the case of respondents 1 to 4 is that No Confidence Motion was passed against him on 16.3. 1999. Be that, as it may, on 16.3.1999 Bibi Jagir Kaur became the President of the SGPC. A public notice appeared in the Daily Tribune dated 6.4.1999 that all the trusts have been dissolved vide resolution dated 30.3.1999 passed in a meeting of the general house of the SGPC. Kulwant Singh, Secretary, SGPC, Amritsar, wrote letter dated 31.3.1999 to the Principal, Sri Guru Ram Dass Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Amritsar, that the meeting of the general house of the SGPC was held on 30.3.1999 and Sri Guru Ram Dass Charitable Hospital Trust, Amritsar, has been dissolved and in future, all the affairs relating to the management of the trust shall be carried out on the instructions of the Head Office of the SGPC. Principal was also asked to send the budget of the college/institute for the year 1999-2000 to the SGPC for approval. Petitioners challenged public notice dated 6.4.1999 which had appeared in the Daily Tribune and then letter sent by Kulwant Singh, Secretary, SGPC, to the Principal of Medical College, by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 5521 of 1999. In the said writ petition, petitioners contended that the trust-deed did not authorise SGPC to dissolve the Trust. Upon notice of the writ petition, a short reply was filed by the SGPC through its Secretary, Kulwant Singh, in which it was submitted that news item dated 6.4.1999 does not portray the correct position. Regarding letter dated 31.3.1999, it was submitted that the same stands withdrawn and no action to be taken on the same. It was also stated that the said letter was issued erroneously and did not convey the spirit of the resolution passed by the general house of the SGPC on 30.3.1999. On consideration of the reply, a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 3.6.1999 disposed of the writ petition as infructuous. 3. In the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioners is that on 16.8.1999, SGPC nominated respondents 3 to 9 as trustees in place of the petitioners who had already been nominated. On consideration of the reply, a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 3.6.1999 disposed of the writ petition as infructuous. 3. In the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioners is that on 16.8.1999, SGPC nominated respondents 3 to 9 as trustees in place of the petitioners who had already been nominated. Petitioners have challenged the appointment of respondent No. 2 as Member Secretary and respondents 3 to 9 as Trustees of the trust on the ground that counsel for respondents 1 to 2 had made a statement in CWP No. 5521 of 1999 which was also recorded in order dated 3.6.1999 passed in the said writ petition, that resolution dated 30.3.1999 passed by the SGPC will not be given effect to. It is pleaded that having made such a statement, SGPC had no authority to appoint respondents 2 as Member Secretary of the Trust and respondents 3 to 9 as trustees of the trust. According to them, appointment of respondents 3 to 9 is patently illegal, unlawful and in violation of the statement made in Court in the earlier writ petition and, therefore, their appointments are liable to be quashed. 4. Upon notice of the writ petition, a detailed written statement has been filed by respondents 1 to 4. Respondents 1 to 4 have denied that resolution Nos. 37 and 38 dated 23.10. 1998 had been placed or approved by the general house of SGPC in its meeting held on 23.10.1998. According to the respondents, in the meeting held on 30.3.1999 when the minutes of the meeting of general house held on 23.10.1998 and 16.3.1999 had to be confirmed, it was brought to the notice of the house by some of the members that resolution Nos. 37 and 38 had never been moved or placed before the general house of SGPC in the meeting held on 23.10.1998, After perusing the record, it was discovered that no resolution Nos. 37 and 38 had been passed by the general house and as such, both these resolutions were unanimously rejected by the general house of SGPC and proceedings of the general house held on 23.10.1998 in respect of these two resolutions were struck off. 37 and 38 had been passed by the general house and as such, both these resolutions were unanimously rejected by the general house of SGPC and proceedings of the general house held on 23.10.1998 in respect of these two resolutions were struck off. Respondents have stated that as per the trust-deed, it was only the executive committee of the SGPC which was competent to nominate trustees and, therefore, the nomination made by Shri G.S. Tohra in pursuance of resolution Nos. 37 and 38 alleged to have been passed on 23.10.1998 was totally without jurisdiction. Further, according to the respondents, general house of SGPC in its meeting held on 30.3.1999 vide resolution No. 203 authorised executive committee of the SGPC to make the nominations of trustees as per the clause contained in the trust-deed. Consequent upon the passing of resolution No. 203, meeting of the executive committee of the SGPC was held on 5.6.1999 in which Bibi Jagir Kaur was authorised in her capacity as President of the SGPC to nominate trustees for the next 6 years and resolution No. 495 in this regard was passed. It was on the basis of this authorisation that fresh nomination of trustees was made by the President of the SGPC. Petitioners in their replication have denied that any member raised any objection in the meeting held on 30.3.1999 that resolution Nos. 37 and 38 had not been passed in the meeting of the general house of SGPC held on 23.10.1998. 5. The submission of Mr. S.C. Kapoor, Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf of petitioners is that vide resolution No. 37 passed by the general house of the SPGC in its meeting held on 23.10.1998, Shri G.S. Tohra was empowered to nominate new trustees and it is in pursuance thereof that he nominated the petitioners and some other persons as trustees. Counsel contended that after the nomination of trustees by Shri G.S. Tohra, respondents 1 and 2 had no jurisdiction to nominate respondents 3 to 9 as trustees. On the other hand, the argument of counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 is that under paragraph 4 of the trust-deed, right to nominate nine trustees after the expiry of first term was with the executive committee of the SGPC and not general house of the SGPC. On the other hand, the argument of counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 is that under paragraph 4 of the trust-deed, right to nominate nine trustees after the expiry of first term was with the executive committee of the SGPC and not general house of the SGPC. It is contended that nomination of trustees on 16.1.1999 by Shri G.S. Tohra on the basis of resolution No. 37 was totally void. Counsel also contended that resolution No. 37 was neither placed nor approved by the general house on 23.10.1998. In answer to the submissions made by counsel for respondents 1 to 4, Mr. Kapoor contended that the executive committee of the SGPC is elected by the general house of SGPC and if the executive committee of SGPC is empowered, then power would always lie with the general house to authorise any member to nominate trustees on its behalf. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 7. There is a serious dispute between the parties with regard to passing of resolution Nos. 37 and 38 in the meeting of the general house of the SGPC held on 23.10.1998. Before I deal with this question, it will be appropriate to decide that even if such a resolution was passed, whether Shri G.S. Tohra was competent to nominate trustees for the next six years. 8. The first term of the trustees was to expire on 11.3.1999. According to the petitioners, in the meeting of the general house of the SGPC held on 23.10.1998, resolution No. 38 (in fact it is 37) was passed vide which Shri G.S. Tohra, the then President of the SGPC, was authorised to nominate trustees for the next six years. Resolution No. 37 vide which Shri G.S. Tohra is alleged to have been empowered to nominate new trustees, reads as under :- "No. 37 Jathedar Gurcharan Singh Tohra, President, S.G.P.C. has been empowered to nominate the new members against the vacant posts and the posts likely to fall vacant in the local Managing Committees, new Trusts, present Trusts, Managing Committees and other institutions running under the control of S.G.P.C." 9. Admittedly, Sri Guru Ram Dass Hospital Charitable Trust was created on 15.12.1992 vide a registered trust-deed. Admittedly, Sri Guru Ram Dass Hospital Charitable Trust was created on 15.12.1992 vide a registered trust-deed. The right of the founder of the trust to regulate the succession to the office of trustee has always been recognised both as regards public and private trusts. He can lay down the line of succession to the office. Paragraph 4 of the trust-deed deals with composition of Board of Trustees. The relevant part of Paragraph-4 reads as under :- "4. Board of Trustees : (i) The Trust shall be governed by the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees shall consist of Founder and Trustees which shall always be not less than 5 and not more than 11. The term of Board shall be for 6 years. S. Gurcharan Singh Tohra, the Founder shall be permanent Trustee for life. He shall be the President for the first term. After that the President of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee shall be Ex officio President of the Trust. (ii) The founder Shri Gurcharan Singh Tohra has appointed the following Trustees for the first term of 6 years from the date of registration of the Trust. He is authorised to appoint total 10 Trustees for the term. After the expiry of first term of 6 years, the executive committee of Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee shall be authorised to appoint 9 Trustees for the next term of 6 years and so on in future. One Trustee shall be nominated for each term by the Founder during his life time. After his death, all the Trustees shall be nominated by the Executive Committee of Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee. The Trustees shall nominate Vice-President and Secretary of the Trust. Names of the Trustees : 1. Sh. Gurcharan Singh Tohra, Founder President. 2. Sh. Manjit Singh Calcutta, Amritsar Trustee and Member Secy. 3. Dr. Hardas Singh Amritsar Trustee 4. Dr. S. Major Singh Uboke, Tarn Taran Trustee 5. Dr. Darshan Singh, Issapur, Amirtsar Trustee 6. Dr. Prem Singh, Advocate, Jalandhar Trustee 7. Dr. S. Parkash Singh Majitha, Amritsar Trustee The remaining Trustees shall be nominated by the Founder as mentioned above. iii) On behalf of the Trustee, the Administration and overall management of the hospital and assets and affairs of the Trust shall be managed by the Secretary of the Trust. Dr. Prem Singh, Advocate, Jalandhar Trustee 7. Dr. S. Parkash Singh Majitha, Amritsar Trustee The remaining Trustees shall be nominated by the Founder as mentioned above. iii) On behalf of the Trustee, the Administration and overall management of the hospital and assets and affairs of the Trust shall be managed by the Secretary of the Trust. The Vice-President to be the President if and when required, will act in the absence of the President and shall do all the jobs and duties as entrusted by the Board of Trustees. iv) Any vacancy due to death or incapacity or for any other reason shall be filled in by the Founder for the first term and by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee for the next term as provided above. 10. From a reading of the above, it is patently clear that Shri G.S. Tohra, Founder was to remain a permanent member for life and President of the Board of Trustees for the first term. After the expiry of first term, the President of the SGPC was to be ex officio President of the Trust. The Founder was authorised to appoint total 10 trustees for the first term and after the expiry of the first term of six years, the executive committee of the SGPC was authorised to appoint 9 trustees for the next six years and so on, in future. After the first term the founder was authorised to nominate only one trustee for each term during his life and after his death, all trustees were to be nominated by the executive committee of the SGPC. 11. The cardinal rule of construction of a deed or document of the nature of a trust is that it must be read as a whole and the intention of the parties has to be ascertained by the terms thereof and not by extrinsic evidence. As regards the intention of the parties, it has been very correctly stated in Odgers Construction of Deeds and Statutes, 5th Ed. P.27 that "the question is not what did the parties intend to say. That is precluded by the presumption that they have said, what they intended to say. The question to be solved is what they have said, what meaning is to be attached to the expressions they have used." 12. In Belapur Co. P.27 that "the question is not what did the parties intend to say. That is precluded by the presumption that they have said, what they intended to say. The question to be solved is what they have said, what meaning is to be attached to the expressions they have used." 12. In Belapur Co. Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Farming Corporation, AIR 1969 Bombay 231, the Bombay High Court after considering various authorities, summarised the legal position of construction of documents in the following terms :- "The proposition that emerge from a consideration of these authorities on the subject are as follows : (1) cases in the English Courts of Chancery have no application to the law of India as laid down in the Evidence Act. (2) In view of the provisions of Section 91 of the Evidence Act, no extrinsic evidence, oral or documentary, can be admitted to prove the terms of a contract, grant or other dispositions of property, except the document itself or secondary evidence of its contents when admissible under the relevant provisions of that Act, and the court must find out the expressed intention of the parties. The fundamental rule of construction is to ascertain the intention from the words used in the document which is considered to be the written declaration of the mind of the author. (3) If the words are clear in expressing that intention and the language applies to existing facts, extrinsic evidence is not admissible for construing the deed or for ascertaining the real intention of the parties e.g. surrounding circumstances cannot be considered with a view to holding that a document which is, on the face of it, a sale-deed was intended to operate as a mortgage. (4) If, however, the words are such that one may suspect that they do not convey the intention correctly, or in other words, there is some doubt as to what the words mean or how they are to be applied to the circumstances of the writer or to the facts existing at the time when the document was executed, extrinsic evidence is admissible, both under proviso (6) to Section 92 of the Evidence Act as well as in English law. In such cases, extrinsic evidence is admissible for the purpose of finding out the meaning of the words which have actually been employed, or what is the same thing, in order to translate the language of the document by assigning a definite meaning to terms capable of such explanation or by connecting them with the proper subject-matter, or in other words for the purpose of throwing light on the meaning of the words used with a view to arrive at the true effect of the transaction to which the document relates. The whole object in such cases is to place the Court as near as may be, in the position of the parties to the document. (5) The subsequent conduct of the parties is, however, not relevant or admissible for the purpose of construing a written document. (6) If the language employed in the document is ambiguous, the question of the admissibility or otherwise of extraneous evidence would be regulated by the provisions of Sections 93 to 98 of the Evidence Act. The plain meaning of the word 19 "ambiguous" is, obscure, or of double meaning (Concise Oxford Dictionary). (7) In view of Section 92 of the Evidence Act, oral evidence can, in no event be admitted to contradict, vary, add to or subtract from the terms of the document, as far as the parities to that document are concerned." 13. In Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur v. Kamla Town Trust, (1996)7 SCC 349, Supreme Court in this very context held that "for finding out the real intention of settlor, the words used in the deed would be the real vehicle of thought of the settlor expressing his intention in cold print. This would be much more so when such recitals in the trust deed are not challenged on the ground that they are a camouflage or a result of a colourable device." 14. In T.A.V. Alleppey v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala (1999)3 SCC 7, the Supreme Court reiterated that the validity of the trust has to be determined in the light of what is stated in the trust deed. 15. The question, therefore, is what was the intention of the founder of the trust. It can be gathered only from the stipulation in trust-deed dated 15.12.1992. 15. The question, therefore, is what was the intention of the founder of the trust. It can be gathered only from the stipulation in trust-deed dated 15.12.1992. It is not a matter of controversy between the parties as to what was the stipulation in regard to nomination of trustees for the first term of six years and for the subsequent terms. From the language used in paragraph 4 of the trust-deed in regard to nomination of trustees, the intention of the founder is very clear and no other evidence is admissible for ascertaining the real intention of the founder. The founder was authorised to appoint 10 trustees only for the first term and after the expiry of first term of six years he was authorised to nominate only one trustee for each term during his life. After the expiry of first term, it was only the executive committee of the SGPC which was authorised to appoint 9 trustees for the next term of six years and so on in future and after the death of the founder, all the trustees were to be appointed by the executive committee of the SGPC. Resolution No. 37 dated 23.10.1998 passed by the general house of the SGPC empowering Shri G.S. Tohra to nominate new trustees of Sri Guru Ram Dass Hospital Charitable Trust was not in accordance with paragraph 4 of the trust-deed. Therefore, the nomination made by Shri G.S. Tohra on 16.1.1999 of the petitioners and others as trustees for the next term of six years was without jurisdiction inasmuch as in the trust-deed dated 15.12.1992, the general house of the SGPC was not authorised to nominate trustees after the expiry of the first term and thus, any authorisation made in favour of Shri G.S. Tohra in this regard by the general house of the SGPC was not in accordance with trust-deed. On the other hand, appointments of respondents 2 to 9 as trustees by Bibi Jagir Kaur, the then President of the SGPC, was in pursuance of resolution No. 495 dated 5.6.1999 passed by the executive committee of the SGPC and the same being in accordance with paragraph 4 of the trust-deed, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that nomination of respondents 2 to 9 as trustees of the trust deserves to be quashed, is without any foundation. 16. The next question which requires consideration is whether resolution Nos. 16. The next question which requires consideration is whether resolution Nos. 37 and 38 were placed and approved by the general house of the SGPC in its meeting held on 23.10.1998. As already noticed, vide resolution No. 37 Shri G.S. Tohra was empowered by the general house of the SGPC to nominate new trustees. Resolution No. 38 only extended the term of trustees to six years instead of five years and thereby corrected the mistake that had occurred in resolution No. 20 dated 30.11.1992. The case of the petitioners is that resolutions 37 and 38 were passed whereas the case of respondents is that the same were neither placed nor approved by the general house of the SGPC. Proceedings-book of the minutes of the meeting held on 23.10.1998 does contain resolution Nos. 37 and 38 but according to the respondents, the same were incorporated without any authority. On 10.5.2001, when the writ petition came up for hearing before me, counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties stated that proceedings of the meeting held on 23.10.1998 were video-recorded. In order to determine whether resolution Nos. 37 and 38 were placed or approved by the general house in its meeting held on 23.10.1998, Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate, was appointed as Local Commissioner to watch video-recording of the proceedings and compare the same with the proceedings-book and also the Gurdwara gazette containing resolution Nos. 37 and 38. Pursuant to the said order, Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate, saw the video-recording of the proceedings in the presence of counsel for the parties and compared the same with the Gurdwara gazette containing minutes of the meeting held on 23.10.1998. In his report dated 10.5.2001, he stated that resolution Nos. 37 and 38 were not at all placed before the house for approval. Video-recording showed that resolutions upto resolution No. 35 had been placed before the House and approved. The Local Commissioner mentioned in his report that the time displayed on the screen from resolutions 13 to 35 and upto the approval of the House, i.e. from 13.53 Oclock to 14.09 Oclock was in continuity (without skipping). He also checked with his watch that there was no discrepancy between the time shown to have elapsed in the displayed time and the time actually elapsed. 17. He also checked with his watch that there was no discrepancy between the time shown to have elapsed in the displayed time and the time actually elapsed. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the video-recording seen by the Local Commissioner came from the possession of the respondents and, therefore, the same cannot be held to be conclusive evidence with regard to passing of resolution Nos. 37 and 38. He contended that Local Commissioner has also commented that the possibility of video-recording shown to him being an edited one cannot be ruled out. In answer to these submissions, Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondents, submitted that from a reading of report dated 10.5.2001 of the Local Commissioner, one is not left in doubt that these two resolutions were not placed or approved by the general house in its meeting held on 23.10.1998. Counsel contended that in the subsequent meting of the SGPC held on 30.3.1999, certain members raised objection regarding inclusion of resolution Nos. 37 and 38 dated 23.10.1998 for confirmation by stating that these were not presented for approval of the house. In this connection, Secretary of the SGPC solicited reply from other members of the house and on discovering that resolution Nos. 37 and 38 had not been presented or approved by the general house in its meeting held on 23.10.1998, minutes in this regard were struck off. 18. It is not in controversy that proceedings of the meeting held on 23.10.1998 were video-recorded. It is also not in dispute that video-recording seen by the Local Commissioner related to meeting held on 23.10.1998. The objection of learned counsel for the petitioners to the report of the Local Commissioner is only to the part whereby he has commented about the non-ruling of possibility of video-recording being edited, whereas the submission of counsel for the respondents is that video-recording seen by the Local Commissioner is not edited one but is the one which had recorded the proceedings of the general house of SGPC held on 23.10.1998. Be that, as it may, it is not for this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to go into the disputed questions of fact. Be that, as it may, it is not for this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to go into the disputed questions of fact. In order to succeed, it was for the petitioners to prove to the satisfaction of this Court that resolution No. 37 was passed by the general house of the SGPC in its meeting held on 23.10.1998 on the basis of which Shri G.S. Tohra had nominated them and others as trustees. There being no conclusive evidence that such a resolution was passed, the contention of counsel for the petitioners that Shri G.S. Tohra was authorised, vide resolution No. 37, to appoint trustees for the next term of six years, is not worth-accepting. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly contended that in Civil Writ Petition No. 5521 of 1999, earlier filed by the petitioners, counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had made a statement that resolution dated 30.3.1999 passed by respondent No. 1 will not be given effect to qua the petitioners. He contended that in view of the statement, respondents are estopped from questioning the passing of resolution No. 37 empowering Shri G.S. Tohra to nominate trustees. In answer to this submission, Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents, submitted that in the earlier writ petition, statement made by him was with regard to resolution and did not relate to proceedings for confirming the minutes of meeting of General House of the S.G.P.C. held on 23.10.1998. He submitted that statement made by him was in regard to resolution No. 203 on the basis of which news item dated 6.4.1999 (Annexure P.2 annexed to CWP No. 5521 of 1991) had been published and letter dated 31.3.1999 (Annexure P.3 annexed to CWP No. 5521 of 1999) was written by the Secretary to the Principal, Sri Guru Ram Dass Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Amritsar. He submitted that there being no admission on the part of the respondents with regard to passing of resolution No. 37. Petitioners cannot derive any benefit from order dated 3.6.1999 passed in the said writ petition. Resolution No. 203 referred to by Mr. Sharma and order dated 3.6.1999 passed in CWP No. 5521 of 1999 read as under :- "203. He submitted that there being no admission on the part of the respondents with regard to passing of resolution No. 37. Petitioners cannot derive any benefit from order dated 3.6.1999 passed in the said writ petition. Resolution No. 203 referred to by Mr. Sharma and order dated 3.6.1999 passed in CWP No. 5521 of 1999 read as under :- "203. With the permission of the President and the consent of the House, it has been unanimously resolved to empower the Internal Committee to the S.G.P.C to take over the charge of the trusts which have been created for the upliftment for the academic and religions motives, because the members have made a complaint that these have failed to achieve the specific aims and targets and could not provide the due benefits. In pursuance of this decision, the Internal Committee is required to take appropriate steps so that the specific aims and targets, for which all the trusts functioning with the aid of Shiromani Committee and under its control, may be attained. For the purpose, the committee can create new trusts, disband the old trusts as well as can nominate new trustees. However while forming the new trusts, the aims should be kept in view. It can also take decision to implore the possibility to achieve the aforesaid targets by making improvement in the existing trusts. The Internal Committee is fully authorised to take any action, as it may deem appropriate, to achieve the above aims. It can also file civil suits or recourse to any legal remedy, if so required :" Order dated 30.3.1999 :- "This case has been listed today for consideration of the Civil Miscellaneous Application dated 28.5.1999 filed on behalf of respondent-Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (hereinafter referred to as SGPC), Amritsar for recalling the order dated 27.4.1999 passed in the main case vide which notice of motion was ordered to be issued to respondent and operation of the order, Annexure P3 (wrongly typed in the order as Annexure P-2) challenged in the writ petition was stayed. A perusal of the record shows that the main petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of the SGPC held on 30.3.1999 and the order Annexure P3 issued by the Secretary, SGPC. In C.M. No. 13246 of 1999 filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. A perusal of the record shows that the main petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of the SGPC held on 30.3.1999 and the order Annexure P3 issued by the Secretary, SGPC. In C.M. No. 13246 of 1999 filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it has been averred that the cause of action for filing of the writ petition does not survive in view of the written statement filed alongwith the C.M. No. 13245 of 1999 in which it has been averred that the impugned order Annexure P3 stands withdrawn and no action is being taken on that basis. In addition to what has been averred in the written statement, learned counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 made a statement before the Court that the resolution dated 30.3.1999 passed by the respondent No. 1 will not be given effect to qua the petitioners. In view of the above, the grievance of the petitioners no longer survives. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous." 20. On perusal of paper-book of Civil Writ Petition No. 5521 of 1999, I find that the same was filed for quashing of Annexures P-2 and P-3. Annexure P-2 was news-item in the Tribune dated 6.4.1999 whereby it was reported that the general house of the SGPC vide unanimous resolution dated 30.3.1999 had dissolved all educational and other trusts, besides cancelling all prior nominations of various Takhts and Managing Committees of certain Gurdwara and other Trusts relating to different religious and educational institutions. Annexure P-3 was letter dated 31.3.1999 written to Principal, Sri Guru Ram Dass Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Amritsar, by Kulwant Singh, Secretary, SGPC, Amritsar, informing him that the general house of the SGPC had dissolved Sri Guru Ram Dass Charitable Hospital Trust, Amritsar. In the said writ petition, respondents 1 and 2, namely, SGPC Amritsar and Kulwant Singh, Secretary, SGPC Amritsar filed a short reply through Secretary, Kulwant Singh. In their reply, respondents stated that Annexure P-3 stands withdrawn as the said communication was issued erroneously and does not convey the spirit of the resolution passed by the general house on 30.3.1999. It is on the basis of the short reply and the statement made by counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the said writ petition was rendered infructuous. 21. It is on the basis of the short reply and the statement made by counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the said writ petition was rendered infructuous. 21. The only resolution passed in the meeting held on March 30,1999 relating to trust was resolution No. 203. It is on the passing of this resolution that news item dated 6.4.1999 had appeared in the Tribune and letter dated 31.3.1999 too had been written by the Secretary, SGPC to the Principal, Sri Guru Ram Dass Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Amritsar. Statement made by Mr. Sharma on 3.6.1999 in CWP No. 5521 of 1999 thus related to resolution No. 203 dated 30.3.1999 as in the said writ petition, validity of the resolution dissolving the trusts alone was under consideration. 22. The proceedings for confirming the minutes of the meeting held on 23.10.1998 and 16.3.1999 in which no confidence motion was passed against Shri G.S. Tohra are contained in Gurdwara Gazette for the month of April, 1999 printed at pages 39 and 40. Reading of the same shows that in the meeting held on 30.3.1999, some of the members objected to the inclusion of minutes of the meeting of the General House of SGPC held on 23.10.1998 regarding passing of resolution Nos. 37 and 38 on the ground that the same had not been placed and approved in the said meeting. On finding that the same had not been passed in the meeting of the General House held on 23.10.1998, the House rejected the said resolutions and minutes and the rest of the minutes of the meetings held on 23.10.1998, and 16.3.1999 were confirmed. Proceedings for confirming the minutes of the meeting held on 23.10.1998 in which resolution No. 37 was allegedly passed was not the subject-matter of dispute in Civil Writ Petition No. 5521 of 1999 and, therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that there was admission on the part of respondents in Civil Writ Petition No. 5521 of 1999 regarding passing of resolution No. 37 in the meeting held on 23.10.1998 is without any basis. 23. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.