- (1.) The Governor of Punjab constituted the Sikh Gurudwaras Tribunal with effect from April 1, 1962 and one Gurdit Singh Aulakh ('Aulakh' for short) was appointed as a member of the Tribunal. He was removed from the membership by an order dated September 10, 1965 and one Shri S. S. Kahla ('Kahla' for short) was appointed to the vacancy so created. Aulakh challenged the validity of his removal in a writ petition filed before the HIgh Court of Punjab. The petition was ultimately allowed in letters patent appeal and the order removing Aulakh from the membership of the Tribunal was quashed. That was on October 13, 1966. An application for leave to appeal to this Court against the decision of the Letters Patent Bench was rejected. So also an application before this Court for special leave to appeal. Thereafter, a notification was issued on October 26, 1966 stating: "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Sikh Gurudwaras Act, 1925, the President of India is pleased to direct the dissolution with immediate effect of the Tribunal constituted vide the Punjab Government Notification No.432-OP dated the 26 April, 1962". This notification was challenged by Aulakh in a writ petition. Aulakh died on July 18, 1969 and the appellants were impleaded as his legal representatives. They confined their claim to the emoluments alleged to be due to the writ petitioner from September 11, 1965, till the date of his death. The High Court dismissed the petition and this appeal, by certificate, is from this decision.
(2.) Mr. Garg, appearing for the appellants, submitted that the notification dissolving the Tribunal was issued for a collateral purpose, viz., to circumvent the effect of the decision of the High Court quashing the order removing Aulakh from the membership of the tribunal and, therefore, the dissolution was bad. In support of this contention, counsel relied upon the note written by the Deputy Advocate General after the writ petition filed by Aulakh was allowed. In that note he said: "If Mr. Aulakh is to be considered to be a member of the Tribunal then the very working of the Tribunal will become impossible. Now there are 4 members instead of 3 contemplated by law". He, therefore, recommended the dissolution of the Tribunal by a notification issued under S.12(1) of the Act and its recommendation on the same day by another notification.
(3.) Counsel contended that when the High Court allowed this writ petition filed by Aulkh on the ground that his removal was bad in law, there was no legal vacancy to which an appointment could have been made and for that reason the appointment of Kahla as a member of the Tribunal was void and, therefore, the Government should have allowed the Tribunal to function with Aulakh as its member in place of Kahla and thereby given effect to the judgment of the High Court instead of circumventing it by dissolving the Tribunal under S.12(1).;