Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT     PETITION     (CIVIL)     NO.376     OF     2012   

BABA TEK SINGH … PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

O     R     D     E     R   

In this petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the  

petitioner states that he apprehends threat to his life, personal  

liberty and property at the hands of the respondents. It is alleged  

that the respondents want to remove him from his positions as  

Mohatmim of Gurudwara Gurusar Sahib, Patshahi Nauvin,  

Dhanaula, District Barnala (Punjab) and the President of the Baba  

Gandha Singh Trust (Registered) and to take over the control of the  

trust and its properties, including three schools at Barnala being run  

by the Trust.  It is further alleged that the respondents hold very  

important positions in the Government and wield great political  

influence.  At their behest, the petitioner is being constantly  

hounded by the police and he has been taken in illegal custody on  

completely false charges on a number of occasions.  The petitioner  

1

Page 2

apprehends that he may even be eliminated at the instance of the  

respondents.  

There may be some substance in the allegations made in the  

writ petition but we do not wish to comment upon the merits of the  

petitioner’s case, as we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition  

because we disapprove the manner in which the matter is brought  

to this Court.  

The petitioner has instituted a number of proceedings  

(criminal and of the nature of contempt and writs) before the Punjab  

and Haryana High Court and in those cases he has also been  

getting orders in his favour.  One such writ petition filed by the writ  

petitioner before the Punjab and Haryana High Court was CWP  

No.21234/2011.  The petitioner seems to have felt that the other  

side was delaying the matter and the case was not proceeding  

efficaciously before the High Court.  He, therefore, filed a petition  

(CM No.8619 of 2012) for withdrawal of the writ petition.  On July  

18, 2012, the High Court allowed the application and permitted the  

petitioner to withdraw his writ petition before the High Court and to  

seek any other remedy available in law.  

Having, thus, withdrawn his writ petition before the High Court,  

the petitioner has come to this Court in this petition under Article 32  

of the Constitution.  

We take exception to the manner in which this petition has  

2

Page 3

been filed before the Court.  The petitioner is completely wrong in  

his belief that the proceeding before the High Court was not  

effective or that he would not have got full and complete protection  

from the High Court, if the High Court found the need to give him  

the protection. The petitioner must realise that the High Courts have  

wide powers and possess as much authority as this Court to protect  

and safeguard the constitutional rights of any person within their  

jurisdiction. We find the action of the petitioner in withdrawing the  

proceedings pending before the High Court simply to file this petition  

before this Court unacceptable and for this reason alone, we refuse  

to entertain this writ petition.  

Had it been any ordinary civil case, we might have left the  

petitioner to face consequences of his action in withdrawing the  

proceedings before the High Court. But, since the matter relates to  

the right to life and personal liberty, and further since the allegations  

made in the writ petition prima facie do not appear to be unfounded  

and baseless, we cannot leave the petitioner completely remediless.  

We, therefore, request the High Court to restore the aforesaid CWP  

No.21234/2011 to its original file and to proceed further in the  

matter, in accordance with law.  We hope and trust that the High  

Court will completely dispel any impression that the other side may  

delay the proceedings and take up the matter without any undue  

delay.  

3

Page 4

We, once again, make it clear that we are not expressing any  

opinion on the merits of the case and it is for the High Court to judge  

the matter independently and to pass appropriate orders in  

accordance with law.  

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations  

and directions.  

……….. ……………………J. (Aftab Alam)

……….. ……………………J. (Ranjana Prakash Desai)

New Delhi; September 17, 2012.

4