$~41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4249/2025 & CM APPL. 19687/2025 SIKH SIKALIGAR WELFARE SOCIETY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepanshu Baisla, Mr. Gaurav Tyagi, Mr. Jatin Nagar, Mr. Vaibhav Tyagi, Advs. versus DELHI SIKH GURUDWARA MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mr Gaurav Kumar Pandey, Ms. Jyotsna kaur, Advs. for R-1. Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Adv. for R-3. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 06.05.2026 1. The instant petition is filed for the following reliefs: “a. Issue a Writ order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby directing the respondent No. 1 to do their statutory duties by either taking over the administrative control of the Sri Nanak Gurudwara at C. no. 25, E-6, Sultanpuri, Delhi-110086. or in the alternative to appoint a suitable qualified granthi or granthis as the need be in the Sri Nanak Gurdwara and perform its functions as per the section 24 of the The Delhi Sikh gurdwara act, 1971. b. Issue a Writ Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby allowing the petitioner to take care of the day-to-day of the Sri Guru Nanak Gurdwara situated at C. no. 25, E-6, Sultanpuri, Delhi-110086. c. Pass order(s) directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner. d. Pass any other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2026 at 16:14:12 2. A perusal of the petition and the relief clause would reveal that the grievance is raised qua respondent no. 4. It is claimed that respondent no. 4 is not a qualified granthi and consequently, a prayer to appoint a ‘suitable’ qualified granthi or granthis in Sri Nanak Gurdwara is made. 3. In Radha Krishnan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh1 the Supreme Court re-iterated the discretion available with the writ court to decline exercise of its powers when disputed questions of facts are involved. The material portion of the judgement reads as under: “27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with.” 4. This Court in IDBI Bank Ltd. v. Power Finance Corporation Ltd.2 while analysing the impermissibility of entertaining writs which have their origin in private and not public law has held as under: “26. Each of the issues so mentioned above, fall exclusively in the domain of private law and are fundamentally contractual in nature. There is no element of public law that this court finds involved in the present petition. The mere fact that the parties engaging in the contract are State or its instrumentalities, does not in itself make the issue relevant to public law. There is no determination of the rights relating to public law, nor is there a consideration relating to the public at large that needs to be factored in while deciding the dispute so argued by the parties. Issuance of the BGs by the petitioner at the instance of respondent no. 2 in the favour of respondent no. 3 and its encashment is purely governed by the terms of the 1(2021) 6 SCC 771. 22023 SCC OnLine Del 2909. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2026 at 16:14:12 BGs. The same is the commercial wisdom of the parties. It concerns the legal relationship between the parties involved, namely, the bank and the beneficiary of the guarantee. The enforcement is not the result of any administrative order or State act involving the exercise of State power. … 35. This court cannot countenance the argument that, whereas, otherwise, a dispute owing to its private law origins ought to have been agitated before a civil court, merely because the entity so breaching the contract is a State or its functionary, the case is to be considered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Arbitrariness, under Article 14 of the Constitution of India needs to be pleaded in exclusion to claims of pure breach of contract. In the present petition, the petitioner has not been able to persuade this court that the breach so alleged on the part of respondents is of such a nature that it may be considered arbitrary and deserves to be entertained under the writ jurisdiction of this court alone.” 5. The need of appointment for qualified granthi / granthis is yet to be determined. Which granthi/granthis is ‘suitable’ would have to be established by the parties by adducing oral and documentary evidence before the Court of competent jurisdiction. If, in law, there is a need for a granthi/granthis, and there is a suitable individual whose appointment can be undertaken in law, all those aspects can be looked into by the concerned Court. 6. Leaving all issues open, the Court declines to accept the prayer made in the instant petition. 7. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed along with all pending applications. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J MAY 6, 2026/SH This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2026 at 16:14:12