- (1.) Whether an appeal preferred under S. 34 of the Sikh Gurudwaras Act, 1925 in the event of a difference of opinion betwixt the learned Judges of the Division Bench hearing the same, cannot be referred to a third Judge under Cl. 26 of the Letters Patent--is the point which has been raised at the very threshold in this case.
(2.) For the limited purpose of determining the aforesaid question, it is unnecessary to adverty to the facts. It suffices to mention that this case first came up for hearing before a Division Bench in accordant with S. 34 of the Sikh Gurudwaras Act, 1925(hereinafter referred to as the Act). The learned Judges constituting the Divisions Bench, after framing exhaustive judgments separately have jointly recorded the following order:- "In view of our difference of opinion, and keeping in view the provisions of Clause 26 of the Letters Patent, the case is sent to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for referring the same to a third Judge."
(3.) Mr. T. S. Mangat, the learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset hat contended that in view of the difference of opinion noticed above, the matter must now be heard by a Full Bench of at least three judges or more and cannot be legally disposed of by me singly. The core of the learned counsels argument appears to centre on Cl 37 of the Letters Patent, which is in the following terms:- "And we do further ordain and declare that all the provision of these out Letters Patent are subject to the Legislative powers of the Governor-General in Legislative Council, and also of the Governor- General in Council under Section Seventy-one of the Government of India Act, 1915 and also of the Governor-General in cases of emergency under section seventy-two of that Act, and may be in all respects amended and altered thereby." Taking a cue from the aforesaid provisions, it was sought to be submitted that the Act and in particular S. 34 thereof prescribes that an appeal thereunder must be heard by a Division Bench and consequently the matter cannot be posted for hearing even after a difference of opinion before a learned singly Letters Patent. Mr. Mangat submitted that Section 34 of the Act read with Clause 37 of the Letters Patent would override Clause 26 thereof with the effect that in the event of a difference betwixt the learned Judges of the Divisions Bench, the matter must be placed before a Bench of at lest three Judges or more to resolve the same. Reliance was sought to be placed on Mahant Lachhman Dass. V. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar, ILR (1976) 1 Punj & Har 594(FB) and Hari Kishan Chela Daya Singh v. Shiromani Guruwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar, AIR 1976 Punj & Har 130(FB) as also on Mahant Budh Dass and Mahant Purna Nand v. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar, AIR 1978 Punj & Har 39(FB.;