HC dismisses petition challenging election of DGPC member from Akhnoor

JAMMU, Jan 15: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed the petition seeking quashment of the order of Additional Deputy Commissioner Jammu whereby the appeal under J&K Sikh Gurudwara and Religious Endowment Rules, 1975 against the election of private respondent as member of Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee District Jammu from Akhnoor constituency was dismissed.
The petitioner Sukhjit Singh had also prayed for quashment of election result to the extent the private respondent has been shown elected as member of Akhnoor Constituency and seeking direction upon the official respondents to produce the record pertaining to the votes polled in the election.
After hearing Advocate Abhimanyu Sharma for the petitioner and Senior AAG Monika Kohli for the respondents, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed, “the appellate authority—-Additional Deputy Commissioner (Adm), Jammu while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner has held that since the appellant did not raise any such issue before commencement of the election process or during the election either himself or through his agent deputed at Polling Station, and it was only after finding the result which went against him the appeal has been filed with malafide intention”.
The grounds taken by the appellant in the appeal are with respect to apprehension of inclusion of the names of the voters, who did not have “Singh and Kour” as “Sir” names and with respect to also some of the voters, who are “clean shaved?, who according to the appellant are non-Sikh voters and have been excluded from the electoral roll.
The appellate authority has rightly rejected the contention of the petitioner that it is mandatory to have “Sikh and Kour” as their “Sir” names to be recognized as “Sikh”. The contention of the petitioner, which has been raised by the appellant/petitioner before the appellate authority is contrary to the definition laid down in the Act of 1973, which is not acceptable and the same cannot be sustainable in the eyes of law.
“There are many people, who do not have “Sikh or Kour” as their “Sir” names, but still they are recognized as Sikh, as they preach Sikhism. This aspect of the matter has gone in detail by the appellate authority and this court concur with the finding recorded by the appellate authority and do not find any legal infirmity with the same”, Justice Nargal said.
High Court further said, “the petitioner having failed to represent before the appropriate forum before conduct of the elections and after having participated in the entire election process, has raised an issue at a belated stage with regard to existence of non-Sikh voters without filing of claims and objections at a stage when he was declared unsuccessful in the elections. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner before the appellate authority was rejected. The petitioner, as such, is estopped under law to question the same at this belated stage”.
With these observations, High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the impugned order/judgment passed by the appellate authority.