13 of 1959
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights
Harnam Singh and Sadhu Singh for the petitioners
section M Sikri Advocate Gencral for the State of Punjab Gopal Singh and D Gupta for respondent No 1
1959 April 1
The judgment of the Court was delivered by section K DAS J
This is a petition under article 32 of the Constitution in which the petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of section 148 B of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act 1925 Punjab VIII of 1925 hereinafter called the principal Act the said section having been added to the principal Act by the Sikh Gurdwaras Amendment Act 1959 hereinafter called the amending Act of 1959
The petitioners profess and practice the Sikh faith and they allege that they are interested in the maintenance and management of Sikh Gurdwaras scheduled and notified under the principal Act
Their main contention is that section 148 B violates the fundamental right granted under article 26b of the Constitution to every religious denomination or any section thereof including the Sikh denomination  to 502 manage its own affairs in matters of religion 
The respondents to the petition are firstly the State of Punjab and secondly President and twelve members of the Interim Gurdwara Board Patiala who under cl
a of sub section
1 of section 148 B shall be deemed to be members of the Board constituted under section 43 of the principal Act
That Board is now known by the name of the Sikh Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee
The application has been contested before us by respondent No 1 only namely the State of Punjab on the ground that section 148 B does not in any way violate the fundamental right granted to the petitioners or other members of the Sikh denomination under article 26b of the Constitution
Therefore the only question for consideration before us is if section 148 B of the principal Act does or does not contravene the fundamental right granted to the Sikhs under article 26b of the Constitution
We shall presently set out the provisions of section 148 B and also of some other relevant sections of the principal Act
But before we do that it is necessary to state a few facts with regard to the passing of the amending Act of 1959
It has been stated before us that in or about the year 1919 there was considerable unrest amongst the Sikhs in the Punjab in respect of the management of their gurdwaras and shrines and in 1922 an Act called the Sikh Gurdwaras and Shrines Act was passed this did not satisfy the Sikhs and in 1925 the principal Act was passed as its preamble states  for the better administration of certain Sikh gurdwaras and for enquiries into matters and settlement of disputes connected therewith 
The principal Act was amended from time to time
On November 1 1956 there was merger of the erstwhile State of Patiala and the East Punjab States Union hereafter called Pepsu in brief with the State of Punjab
Sometime in February 1957 the Government of the State of Punjab appointed an advisory committee to report as to whether the principal Act should be extended to the area which was formerly within Pepsu
In September 1957 the committee recommended in favour of such extension
On April 8 1958 a bill called the Sikh 503 Gurdwaras Amendment Bill 1958 was introduced in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha and the Bill was sent to the regional committees constituted by an order of the President called the Punjab Regional Committees Order 1957 made under el
1 of article 371 of the Constitution
The regional committees dealt with the Bill and made certain recommendations
For the purposes of the application before us it is unnecessary to go into details of the proceedings before the regional committees
Sometime in November 1958 there was a meeting of the Sikh Gurdwara Prabandbak Com mittee for the purpose of the annual election
Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated before us that at this meeting there was a majority by a very small margin three votes only in favour of a particular group of Sikhs and against another group known as the  Shiromoni Akali Dal
Within one week however a notice was given for calling a meeting to consider the provisions of the amending Bill this meeting could not however be held as an order of stay was obtained from the Judicial Commission constituted under the principal Act
In December 1958 a special session of the Vidhan Sabha was summoned to consider the amending Bill
It has been stated that originally the amending Bill did not contain provisions like those later embodied in section 148 B
The Bill was accordingly sent back to the regional committees and on December 27 1958 the regional committees submitted a final report and recommended the addition of provisions which subsequently became the provisions of section 148 B of the principal Act
It may be here stated that even in the regional committees there was some opposition to the provisions in question
On December 31 1958 the Bill was passed by the Vidhan Sabha and on January 3 1959 it was passed by the Legislative Council
On January 8 1959 it received the assent of the Governor and became Punjab Act No 1 of 1959 which is the Amending Act of 1959
It came into force at once and some rules under the Act were made a few days after
On February 2 1959 the present petition was filed and on February 14 1959 the election of 35 Sikhs contemplated under el
b of sub section
1 of section 148 B was completed
504 It is necessary at this stage to refer to some of the old provisions of the principal Act as also the new provisions added by the amending Act of 1959
The Board which is known as the Sikh Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee acts as the committee of management in respect of some of the principal Sikh gurdwaras in addition it also has the duty of ensuring that every committee of management deals with the property and income of the gurdwara or gurdwaras managed by it in accordance with the provisions of the Act and for the fulfilment of this duty it exercises control direction and general superintendence over all committees appointed under the provisions of the principal Act see section 125
The Board is constituted under section 43 of the principal Act
Previous to the passing of Punjab Act No 44 of 1953 section 43 said that the Board shall consist of i 84 elected members ii the bead ministers of certain well known Sikh gurdwaras iii 12 members nominated by the Rajpramukh of Pepsu and iv 17 members resident in India of whom not more than four shall be residents in Punjab co opted by the members of the Board as described in i ii and iii above
In 1953 was passed Punjab Act No 44 of 1953 and section 43 of the principal Act was amended
The amended section was in these terms  section 43
1 The Board shall consist of i one hundred and thirty two elected members ii the head ministers of the Darbar Sahib Amritsar and the following four Takhts namelythe Sri Akali Takht Sahib Amritsar the Sri Takht Kesgarh Sahib Anandpur the Sri Takht Patna Sahib Patna and the Sri Takht Nazur Sahib Hyderabad Deccan  and iiitwenty five members resident in India of whom at least twelve shall be residents of Pepsu at least nine of other parts of India than Punjab and Pepsu and not more than four of Punjab co opted by the members of the Board as described in clauses 1 and ii
2    It would thus appear that after the passing of Punjab 505 Act No 44 of 1953 the Board consisted of only three categories of members namely 1 elected members 2 certain designated members and 3 25 co opted members
Now we come to section 148 B which was added by the amending Act of 1959
That section in so far as it is material for our purpose is in these terms   section 148 B 1 As from the commencement of the Amending Act in addition to the members of the Board constituted under section 43 and till the next election of the new Board under section 43 A aevery person in the extended territories who immediately before the commencement of the Amending Act is a member of the Interim Gurdwara Board Patiala constituted by Punjab Government Home Department Notification No 18 Gurdwaras dated the 10th January 1958 shall be deemed to be a member of the Board constituted under section 43 and bthirty five Sikhs including six Sikhs belonging to the Scheduled Castes residents in the extended territories to be divided among different districts thereof in proportion to the Sikh population of each district in the prescribed manner who shall within forty days of the commencement of the Amending Act be elected by the persons specified in subsection 2 in accordance with the rules made in this behalf by the State Government shall become the members of the Board from the date specified in subsection 3
2 The thirty five persons referred to in clause b of sub section 1 shall be elected by i the persons who are deemed to be the members of the Board under clause a of sub section 1  ii the twelve members of the Board being residents of Pepsu as are referred to in clause iii of sub section 1 of section 43 iii the sitting Sikh members of Parliament and the two Houses of State Legislature returned from any constituency or part thereof from the extended territories iv the Sikh members of Municipal Committees in the extended territories 64 506 vthe Presidents or Chairmen of such Singh Sabhas and the Managers or Secretaries of such Sikh educational institutions or Sikh religious organisations as are registered on or before the 1st December 1958 in the extended territories and vi the Sikh Sarpanches and Sikh Nayay Pardhans of Nagar Panchayats and Panchayati Adalats respectively Provided that the electors under clauses iii iv v and vi are not disqualified under the proviso to section 49 of the Act
3     4     5      It is worthy of note here that section 148 B occurs in chapter XII A and the heading of the chapter is  Temporary and Transitional Provisions  which indicates clearly enough that the provisions in sections 148 B to 148 F ate temporary and transitional provisions
It has been stated at the Bar that in about a year a fresh election of the Board is due under section 43 A and the temporary and transitional provisions in chapter XII A are to be in force only for the intervening period
Section 43 A which was also added by the amending Act of 1959 says section 43 A 1 Whenever a new Board within the meaning of section 51 is constituted it shall consist of i one hundred and forty elected members ii the Head Ministers of the Darbar Sahib Amritsar and the following four Takhats namely  the Sri Takhat Sahib Amritsar the Sri Takhat Keshgarh Sahib Anandpur the Sri Takhat Patna Sahib Patna and the Sri Takhat Hazur Sahib Nanded and iii fifteen members resident in India of whom not more than five shall be residents of Punjab coopted by the members of the Board as described in clauses i and ii
2 The State Government shall as soon as may be call a meeting of the members of the Board described in clauses i and ii of sub section 1 for the 507 purpose of co opting the members described in clause iii of that sub section and after the members have been co opted the State Government shall notify the fact of the Board having been duly constituted and the date of the publication of the notification shall be deemed to be the date of the constitution of the Board
 Thus the new or permanent Board which will be constituted under section 43 A will consist of 1 one hundred and forty elected members 2 five designated members and 3 fifteen co opted members and there will be no room for any nominated members therein
The petitioners have raised no objections to the constitution of the Board under section 43 A all their objections are confined to the constitution of the Board under section 148 B even though it is a transient provision for the transitional period only
What then are these objections in so far as they bear on the alleged violation of the petitioners  fundamental right under article 26 b of the Constitution  Learned counsel for the petitioners has first commented on what he has characterised as undue haste in passing the amending Act of 1959
He has submitted that the Pepsu area came within the State of Punjab in November 1956 and for about two years the Punjab Government evinced no serious anxiety to extend the principal Act to that area but from November 16 1958 when the annual election of the Sikh Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee was held up to January 1959 when the amending Act of 1959 was passed hurried proceedings were taken to enact the amending law in question and so constitute the Board that a particular group of Sikhs might not regain the majority it had lost on November 16 1958
In our opinion these submissions we do not say whether they are right or wrong have no hearing on the question at issue before us
The petitioners have not specifically alleged in their petition that the State Government has acted in any mala fide manner and whatever justification some people may feel in their criticisms of the political wisdom of a particular legislative or executive action this Court cannot be called 508 upon to embark on an enquiry into public policy or investigate into questions of political wisdom or even to pronounce upon motives of the legislature in enacting a law which it is otherwise competent to make
We do not say that in pronouncing on the rights of the parties before it this Court must always stand aloof on the chill and distant heights of abstract logic and pay no heed to the great tides and currents which move society and men
If and when the occasion demands for example when there is violation of a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution it will never hesitate to act
But it is well to remember that a fundamental right such as freedom of religion is of an enduring character and must stand beyond the sweep of changing and deflecting forces of current opinion
Our limited function in this case therefore is to examine the constitutionality of section 148 B and to that task we must now confine our attention
The main argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that article 26b gives to every religious denomination or any section thereof the right  to manage its own affairs in matters of religion  and the right is subject only to public order morality and health
In this case according to him the right is given to all members of the Sikh denomination and not to any particular members thereof to manage Sikh gurdwaras  therefore the right must be exercised by all Sikhs and they alone must elect their representatives to manage Sikh gurdwaras and to the extent that section 148 B departs from the aforesaid principle it con stitutes an infringement of the right guaranteed to the petitioners under article 26b of the Constitution
We are unable to accept this argument as correct
Article 26 of the Constitution so far as it is relevant for our purpose says  article 26
Subject to public order morality and health every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right a     b to manage its own affairs in matters of religion 509 d to administer such property in accordance with law
The distinction between cls
b and d strikes one at once
So far as administration of its property is con cerned the right of a religious denomination is to be exercised in  accordance with law  but there is no such qualification in el
In The COmmissioner Hindu Religious Endowments Madras vs Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt 1 this distinction was pointed out by this Court and it was there observed  The administration of its property by a religious denomination has thus been placed OD a different footing from the right to manage its own affairs in matter of religion
The latter is a fundamental right which no legislature can take away whereas the former can be regulated by laws which the legislature can validly impose 
Secondly the expression used in cl
b is in matters of religion 
In what sense has the word religion  been used  This was considered in two decisions of this Court The Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments Madras vs Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shiru Mutt 1 and Sri Venkataramana Devaru vs The State of Mysore 2 and it was hold that freedom of religion in our Constitution is not confined to religious beliefs only but extends to essential religious practices as well subject to the restrictions which the Constitution has laid down
In The Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments Madras vs Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt 1 it was observed at p 1026 that under article 26b a religious denomination or Organisation enjoys complete autonomy in the matter of deciding as to what rites and ceremonies are essential according to the tenets of the religion they hold we emphasise here the word essential 
The same emphasis was laid in the later decision of Sri Venkataramana Devaru vs The State of Mysore 2 where it was said that matters of religion in article 26b include practices which are regarded by the community as part of its religion
Two questions therefore 1  1023 1026
2  510 arise in connection with the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners 1 does section 148 B added to the principal Act by the amending Act of 1959 have reference only to administration of property of Sikh gurdwaras and therefore must be judged by cl
d of article 26 or 2 does it affect  matters of religion  within the meaning of cl
b of the said Article  The argument on behalf of the petitioners is that the principal Act to which section 148_B has been added relates not merely to administration of properties of Sikh gurdwaras but also to matters of religion and in so far as section 148 B brings in new members into the Board it affects Sikhs in their religious affairs
The argument on behalf of the respondent State is that matters of religion in the sense of essential beliefs and practices of the Sikh faith are left untouched by section 148 B and even other relevant sections of the principal Act do not interfere with Sikh religion
In this connection our attention has been drawn to the provisions in Ch
X which deal with the powers and duties of the Board and to those in Ch
XI which deal with powers and duties of Committees
Section 125 to which we have already referred states that the duty of the Board is to ensure that every Committee deals with the property and income of the gurdwara or gurdwaras it manages in accordance with the provisions of the Act and in fulfilment of that duty the Board has vested in it control direction and general superintendence over all committees appointed under the provisions of the Act
Section 129 states  section 129
The Board in any meeting may consider and discuss any matter with which it has power under this Act to deal and any matter directly connected with the Sikh religion but shall not consider or discuss or pass any resolution or order upon any other matter
 If section 129 is read subject to section 125 as the learned Advocate General for the State contends it should be read then the powers and duties of the Board in substance and effect relate to administration of gurdwara properties and matters ancillary thereto
They have 511 hardly any reference to  matters of religion 
Section 133 states generally the powers of Committees and one of the powers is I enforcing the proper observance of all ceremonies and religious observances in connexion with such gurdwara or gurdwaras and of taking all such measures as may be necessary to ensure the proper management of the gurdwara or gurdwaras and the efficient administration of the property income and endowments thereof  Learned counsel for the petitioners has emphasised that part of the section which relates to I proper observance of all ceremonies and religious observances  and has contended that as the Board is the committee in respect of some of the principal gurdwaras it has a duty to ensure proper observance of all essential religious ceremonies of the Sikh faith which according to him is a I matter of religion 
Under section 134 the Committee has power inter alia to dismiss an office holder or minister if he fails in the performance of any rituals and ceremonies in accordance with the teachings Of Sri Guru Granth Sahib  or has ceased to be a Sikh  it is contended that this power also relates to a matter of religion  within the meaning of article 26b
Without a fuller and more detailed examination of the provisions of the principal Act we hesitate to pronounce finally on the larger question if any of the other provisions of the principal Act affect matters of religion  nor do we think it necessary to decide that larger question in the present case
We are of the view that the present petition can be decided on a shorter ground even if we proceed on the assumption that some of the provisions of the principal Act relate to matters of religion and the Board either acting in exercise of its power of control direction and superintendence over other committees or in its capacity as the committee for certain gurdwaras can pass orders about matters of religion
We may point out however that the preamble of the principal Act indicates that it is mainly a law to provide for the better administration of certain Sikh gurdwaras and it is admitted that in so far as the powers of the Board relate to mere administration of gurdwara properties in either 512 of its two capacities such administration must be in accordance with law and the appropriate legislature can lay down what the law should be
The question which is decisive of the present petition is does section 148 B interfere in matters of religion  Sections 133 and 134 of the principal Act are not impugned before us what is impugned is section 148 B
That section has not in any way affected whatever powers the Board or Committee has under sections 133 and 134 of the principal Act
The gravamen of the objections urged on behalf of the petitioners is that section 148 B introduces even though as a temporary measure some more designated Sikh Members into the Board by cl
a of subs
1 thereof and further introduces the election of thirty five Sikhs from the Pepsu area into the Board by means of an indirect method that is by a limited Sikh electorate the members of which electorate are in their turn elected by Sikhs as well as non Sikhs
In order to establish their case the petitioners must prove not merely that some provisions Of the principal Act refer to matters of religion but that the introduction of new members into the Board in respect of the extended territories of the Pepsu area in the manner envisaged by section 148 B violates by itself the right of the Sikhs in a matter of religion
Learned counsel for the petitioners is thus forced to take up the stand that a direct election of the members of the Board by the entire Sikh community is itself a matter of the Sikh religion and therefore part of the content of the right Guaranteed under article 26b
We do not think that such a stand is correct or justified by article 26 of the Constitution nor has any authoritative text been placed before us to show that a direct election by the entire Sikh community in the management of gurdwaras is part of the Sikh religion
The principal Act as it stood before the amending Act of 1959 does not support any such contention
However great our respect may be for the democratic principle of direct elections we do not think that having regard to the provisions of  the principal Act and the circumstances in which section 148 B came to be added thereto the principle of direct 513 election on universal denominational suffrage can be raised to the pedestal of religion within the meaning of article 26b of the Constitution
If it were so raised then the co option of some members which has not been challenged by the petitioners would also be violative of their fundamental right so also any restrictions which the principal Act or the rules made thereunder may impose in the matter of election or the exercise of the vote such as restrictions with regard to the age of the voter etc
Obviously these are not matters of religion and we say without meaning any offence to anybody that to treat these as matters of religion is tantamount to confusing religion with current politics
It is to be remembered that the principal Act constituted a Board representative of the Sikhs both inside Punjab and outside it that is why in the constitution of the Board there was provision for election nomination designation of the head ministers of certain principal Sikh gurdwaras and also co option
The purpose obviously was to make the Board as representative as possible and because an Act passed by the Punjab legislature could not contain provisions for the election of members from constituencies outside the Punjab there arose the necessity for nomination designation and co option
The designation of the head ministers of the five principal Sikh shrines may be also attributed to the reason that they were important functionaries who should be on the Board
In 1953 nomination was done away with and the number of co opted members was increased to twentyfive of whom at least twelve were to be residents of Pepsu
This was even before the principal Act was extended to the Pepsu area
When the amending Act of 1959 extended the principal Act to the Pepsu area the problem at once arose as to how to give some representation to the Sikhs in the extended areas for the intervening period before the next election of the Board and also as a permanent measure section 148 B gives representation to those areas as an interim measure and section 43 A as a permanent measure
Considering section 148 B in the light of these circumstances we 65 514 are unable to hold that it violates the fundamental right of the Sikhs under article 26b of the Constitution
The method of representation for the extended areas during the interim period appears to us to be an arrangement dictated merely by considerations of convenience and expediency and does not involve any principle of religion
The question before us is not whether a more satisfactory arrangement could have been made even for the interim period  perhaps it could have been
Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that many Sikhs of influence and standing in the Pepsu area will have no vote for the interim period
That may be unfortunate but is not a relevant consideration for determining the question before us namely whether there has been interference with freedom of religion
We now proceed to consider the specific grievances which the petitioners have made in respect of the persons who come into the Board under section 148 B As to the members of the Interim Board Patiala who under cl
a of sub section
1 of section 148 B are deemed to be members of the Board constituted under section 43 it is argued that they were appointed under a Punjab Government notification dated January 10 1958 and though they are Sikhs they do not represent the Sikh community and are mere nominees of Government furthermore they are not subject to the disqualifications mentioned in sections 45 and 46 of the Act in respect of elected and co opted members respectively
We have pointed out earlier that the principal Act contained a provision before 1953 for nomination of 12 members by the Rajpramukh of Pepsu and after 1953 the co opted members included twelve residents of Pepsu
By an order of the Maharaja of Patiala the Interim Gurdwara Board Patiala was constituted to look after certain gurdwaras of the Pepsu area and after merger the appointment was made by the Governor of the Punjab
Under section 148 A which was also added to the principal Act by the amending Act of 1959 the Interim Gurdwara Board Patiala has ceased to function and under section 148 B1a the members of the Interim Board Patiala have become members 515 of the Board constituted under section 43
We are unable to hold that the designation of such members as an interim measure to represent those gurdwaras in the Pepsu area which they were actually managing is violative of any fundamental right nor do we think that the non application of the disqualifications stated in sections 45 and 46 of the Act to these members advances the case of the petitioners any further
The principal Act did not contain any provisions as to disqualification of designated members it contained provisions for disqualification of elected nominated or co opted members and after nomination had ceased in 1953 of elected or co opted members only
It is permissible to presume that the legislature knows that the members it is designating do not suffer from any disqualifications furthermore the petitioners have not even suggested in their petition that the members of the Interim Board Patiala suffer from any Of the disqualifications stated in section 45 or section 46
With regard to the thirty five Sikhs to be elected under cl
b of sub section
1 of section 148 B there is a threefold contention
It has been submitted that 1 the electorate detailed in sub section
2 of section 148 B is not representative of all the Sikhs  2 some of the members of the electorate like Sikh members of Parliament and Municipal Committees are in their turn elected by joint constituencies of Sikhs and non Sikhs and 3 some of the members of the electorate like Sikh Sarpanches and Sikh Naya Pradhans are in the service and under the influence of Government
We do not agree that these considerations are determinative of the problem before us
We have already said that the method of representation to the Board for the extended areas as an interim measure is not a matter of religion
The circumstance that some members of the electorate are in their turn elected by constituencies consisting of Sikhs and non Sikhs is far too remote and indirect to constitute an infringement of freedom of religion
The members of the electorate itself are all Sikhs and they have to elect thirty five Sikhs
Unless one proceeds mechanically on mere abstract considerations there is no real basis for the 516 contention that non Sikhs can in any way influence the Board
We do not agree that Sikh Sarpanches and Naya Pradhans are in the service of Government or that their inclusion as members of the electorate violates the right of the Sikhs under article 26 b of the Constitution
It may not be quite irrelevant to point out here that the twelve members of the Interim Gurdwara Board Patiala plus thirty five elected Sikhs from the Pepsu area will be a minority as against 132 elected members and twenty five co opted members of the Board
For the reasons given above we hold that the petitioners have failed to make out a case of violation of their fundamental right
Accordingly the petition fails and is dismissed with costs
Petition dismissed


Summary:
Respondent I filed an election petition challenging the election of the appellant
The security required to be deposited under section 117 Of the Representation of the People Act 1951 was made in the following terms  Security deposits for Election Petition of Bargi Assembly Constituency No 97 Distt
Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh
Refundable by order of the Election Commission of India New Delhi
 Before the Election Tribunal the appellant made an applica tion alleging that there was non compliance with the provisions section 117 inasmuch as i the deposit was not in favour of the Secretary to the Election Commission and ii the amount was only refundable to the depositor and would not be payable to appellant in case the petition was dismissed under section 903
The Tribunal upheld the objections and dismissed the petition under section 003
Respondent I preferred an appeal under section 116 A of the Act to the High Court
The High Court allowed the appeal set aside the order of the Tribunal and sent back the petition for trial
The appellant contended that no appeal lay to the High Court and that there was non compliance with the provisions of s117
Held that an appeal lay to the High Court under section 116 A of the Act against the dismissal of the election petition under section 903 by the Tribunal
The order passed by the Tribunal under section 903 was an order passed at the conclusion of the trial of the petition and was in substance and in law one under section 98
Once an election petition was entrusted to the Tribunal the trial started and any order passed by the Tribunal which concluded the trial was an order at the conclusion of the trial
Harish Chandra Bajpai vs Tirloki Singh   referred to
Gulsher Ahmad vs Election Tribunal AIR 1958 Madh
Pra 224 approved
Held further that there had been substantial compliance with the provisions of section 117 of the Act
Section 117 was not to be strictly or technically construed and a substantial compliance with its requirements was sufficient
The security in this case 528 had been made in respect of the election petition in question and it had been credited towards the accounts of the Election Commission
The use of the words  refundable  would not prevent the Election Commission from making an order of payment of the amount to the successful party
Kamraj Naday vs Kunju Thevar AIR  applied