Sikkim High Court: The Bench of Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J. allowed an impleadment through the present petition.
The petitioner in the present case submitted that during the mid-eighties Sikhs in the Indian Army and members of other professionals collected funds and built a Gurudwara at Gurudongmar Lake and placed the Nishan Sahib there and since then it has been open for public to offer prayers for which the Government of Sikkim has always issued permission to the pilgrims.
It has been stated that “Dzumsa” with the help and assistance of local administration and more particularly the sub-divisional magistrate removed the holy Guru Granth Sahib Ji, uprooted the Nishan Sahib, dismantled all internal furniture and removed the holy items from the premises of Gurudwara. All of this leads to the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The directions sought by the petitioners are the restoration of the Guru Granth Sahib Ji, the Nishan Sahib and direction to fix all internal furniture, next direction was upon the State-respondents to refrain from dismantling Gurudwara, further, a writ of prohibition was also prayed for in the same respect.
State of Sikkim provided the background of the dispute regarding the construction of the Gurudwara near the Gurudongmar Lake on reserved forest land. “Dzumsa” opposes the building of the Gurudwara by the Army. Applicant pleads that the applicant is a necessary party, the application is bonafide and the impleadment of the applicant would not change the nature and character of the writ petition and no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner as well as the private respondent.
Further, petitioner pleaded that the petition had been filed for the purpose of complaining about the gross violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of India by State-respondents regarding illegal acts committed.
“Rule 101 of Sikkim High Court (Practice & Procedure) Rules, 2011 provides that every person likely to be affected in any manner by the result of the petition shall be joined as a respondent thereto and any petition in which a necessary party is not impleaded is liable to be dismissed.”
Applicant sought a prayer of prohibition upon the State of Sikkim, not to dismantle the Gurudwara. Any activity if in a reserved forest area would necessarily need the permission and involvement of the Applicant. For the issuance of writ of prohibition, it is necessary to hear the applicant.
It is necessary to implead the applicant to enable this Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the writ petition. Therefore, application for impleadment of the PCCF-Secretary, Forest Environment & Wildlife Management Department, Government of Sikkim as a respondent was allowed. Array of respondents may be amended accordingly and the applicant permitted to file a counter-affidavit. [Sri Guru Singh Sabha v. State of Sikkim, 2018 SCC OnLine Sikk 241, Order dated 01-12-2018]