V.K. Bali, J. - Dera Sullar through its Mahant, Jaspal Dass Chela of late Shri Mahant Brahm Ra0ttan, a Udasin religious and charitable institution, through present petition filed by it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash proclamation notices, Annexure P-9 and P-10, that have been issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala and circulated by Sub Division Officer (Civil), Patiala. Before however, the grounds on which the relief, as mentioned above, are adverted to, it shall be necessary to give resume of the facts culminating into this writ. 2. The case of petitioner Institution as culled out from the pleadings is that Sullar Udasi Institution known as `Dera Sullar', which is religious and charitable Institution for Udasin Sampardai, exists in the revenue estate of village Sullar, District Patiala and Jaspal Dass is the present Mahant of this Institution. The Gaddi of Mahantship of this Institution has always been with the hereditary Mahant and the succession has been devolving from Guru to Chela. Mahant Lachhman Dass was succeeded by his Chela Mahant Braham Gian, who in turn was succeeded by his Chela Mahant Braham Rattan, who died on April 4, 1974. During his lifetime, Mahant Braham Rattan executed a registered Will in favour of Jaspal Dass, who is his Chela and he was further nominated to be Mahant after the death of Mahant Braham Rattan. According to customs and rituals of the Udasin Sampardai, in the congregation of Mahants, Sants and local inhabitants, Mahant Jaspal Dass was duly installed as Mahant of the Institution and mutation of succession was sanctioned in his favour by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade on April 26, 1974. The same has been placed on the records of this case as Annexure P-1, Maharaja Patiala late Shri Bhupinder Singh had bestowed a grant of Muafi i.e. exemption of payment of land revenue and a Sanad Muafi was granted by the Commissioner, Settlement on May, 1908 in favour of petitioner-Institution. Mahant Jaspal Dass was minor at the time of his appointment as Mahant and he was, thus, brought up under the traditions of the Udasin Sampardai by his mother, who also happened to be widow of late Mahant Braham Rattan. He was only three years old when he was so appointed. At the time when he filed the present petition, he was 21 years of age. It is he, who through his mother earlier and now himself was managing the affairs of the Institution as its lawful Mohatmim and there was no invasion on his rights, title and interest during all these years nor had there been ever any interference from any quarter, whatsoever. However, Mahant Ram Sarup Dass- respondent No. 5 started proclaiming himself to be Mahant of the Institution by asserting himself to be Chela of late Mahant Braham Rattan. He asserted his right by way of civil suit that he filed against Mahant Jaspal Dass as also his mother for possession in the year 1977. The burden of the plaint was that he had succeeded to the petitioner institution as its Mahant and that Mahant Jaspal dass or his mother had nothing to do with it. On the pleadings of the parties, one of the issues that were framed by the Civil Court, was as to whether Mahant Jaspal Dass was Chela of deceased Mahant Braham Rattan and was appointed as Mahant of the institution and which appointment was approved by the Bhaikh and inhabitants of the village and worshipers. This issue, it is pleaded, was determined in favour of Mahant Jaspal Dass and against respondent No. 5. The suit instituted by respondent No. 5 was, thus, dismissed on November 25, 1985. Aggrieved, thus, dismissed on November 25, 1985. Aggrieved, he filed an appeal which too was dismissed on January 30, 1987. Before the matter is proceeded any further, it shall be useful to see the real controversy involved in the civil suit, referred to above. After the death of Mahant Braham Rattan, as he was admitted to be duly appointed Mahant or Mohtmim of the Institution, respondent No. 5 in his civil suit pleaded that he being the sole Chela of said Mahant Braham Rattan, was entitled to the possession of the Dera and the properties attached thereto. The averments made in the plaint further reveal that it was the case of respondent No. 5 that after the death of Braham Rattan, when he was away on pilgrimage and came back only in January, 1975, he was installed as the Mahant of the Dera by the Bheikh and other inhabitants of the village and since then he was the Mahant of the Dera, thus, was entitled to obtain possession of the same and the properties attached to it. He was about one year old when he fell ill and there was no hope of his survival. He was brought to Braham Rattan, who was at that time the Mahant of the Dera. Braham Rattan then placed him in the middle of a circle of bushes and set those bushes on fire and cited some Mantras. Thereafter, he asked the parents of respondent No. 5 to pick him up but they did not do so. Rather he was picked up from that fire by Mahant Braham Rattan himself. Consequently, his parents gave him to Mahant Braham Rattan. It is pleaded that he started living in the Dera in 1953 and was installed as Chela by Braham Rattan, at Haridwar after the performance of due ceremonies. After the death of Braham Rattan, his wife Mst. Darshana Devi claimed the property on behalf of her minor son, Jaspal Dass, on the ground that he was Chela of Braham Rattan deceased. Mutations of the disputed property were also got sanctioned in favour of Jaspal Dass, minor. It was in these circumstances that it was averred that Jaspal Dass had no right or title to inherit the disputed property or to become Chela of Mahant Braham Rattan. Claim of respondent No. 5 was hotly contested. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to many issues, some of which, that have bearing upon the controversy involved in this writ, are as under:- "(1) Whether the plaintiff is the only Chela of deceased Mahant Braham Rattan ? (2) Whether the plaintiff was installed as the Mahant of the dera in question by the Bheikh in habitation of the village ? (4) Whether the defendant No. 1 is incapable of becoming a Chela being a child as alleged in the plaint ? (6) Whether defendant No. 1 was Chela of deceased Mahant Braham Rattan and was appointed as Mahant of the Dera by registered Will dated 27.3.1974 by deceased Mahant and his appointment has been approved by Bheikh and inhabitants of village and worshipers ? If so, its effect ?" The trial Court returned the findings on the aforesaid issues in favour of Jaspal Dass and against respondent No. 5. These findings were confirmed by the first Appellate Court in an appeal that was preferred by respondent No. 5. 3. Issue No. 1, as referred to above, was determined against respondent No. 5 with the following concluding paragraph:- "In these circumstances, there was hardly any question of the plaintiff being the Chela of Brahm Rattan deceased nor was there any question of Brahm Rattan deceased treating him his Chela. From the copies of plaints, Exs. DW4/A and DW4/B file by Brahm Rattan deceased against the plaintiff and others as also from the recitals in the registered Will, Ex. DW1/A, made by Brahm Rattan deceased in favour of his minor son, Jaspal Dass, defendant No. 1 it is evident that the plaintiff was never made Chela of Brahm Rattan deceased and the contention of the plaintiff that he was the Chela of Brahm Rattan deceased is totally false and baseless. This issue is, accordingly, found and decided against the plaintiff." After elaborate discussion, Issue No. 2 was concluded with the following paragraph :- "I hold that the plaintiff has no concern with the Dera and the property attached to the same nor can he claim to have been validly installed as Mahant of the Dera by the Bheikh and other residents of the when Jaspal Dass minor defendant had already been validly appointed to that office. This issue is, accordingly, found and decided against the plaintiff." Under Issue No. 4, it was held that "the plaintiff had no concern with the Dera in question nor had he got any locus standi to challenge the appointment of Jaspal Dass, defendant No. 1 as Mahant of that he was the son of Brahm Rattan deceased, was no disqualification for being appointed him as Mahant of the Dera. There is no evidence on record whether there were any special ceremonies attached to the office of Mahant of the Dera which could not be performed by a minor either personally or through his guardian. In fact, any person including a minor could be appointed as Mahant of the Dera and Jaspal Dass being the child can Chela of Brahm Rattan deceased was validly appointed as Mahant of the Dera." After lengthly discussion Issue No. 6 was concluded by the following lines :- "As a result of the aforesaid discussion, I hold that Jaspal Dass, minor defendant No. 1was validly appointed as Chela by Brahm Rattan deceased in his lifetime and he also nominated him as h is successor by means of a registered Will dated 23.3.1974, Ex. DW1/A and after the demise of Brahm Rattan aforesaid, his son and Chela Jaspal Dass defendant No. 1 was validly installed as Mahant of the Dera by the Bheikh and other residents of the village and the plaintiff has no locus standi to challenge the same. This issue is, accordingly, found and decided n favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff." 4. In spite of the fact that respondent No. 5 had lost his cause before the Civil Court, it is pleaded, he did not desist from still claiming the status of a Mahant and occupying the Dera and properties attached thereto and with that design in mind, he moved an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala exercising the powers of Head of Dharamarth Branch to take the control and management of petitioner Institution. The mother of Mahant Jaspal Dass was impleaded as respondent. The contents of the application aforesaid were not appraised to the petitioner but the Deputy Commissioner called upon Smt. Darshana Devi, mother of Mahant Jaspal Dass to appear before the District Officer, Removal of Grievances Incharge, Dharamarth Branch, exercising the powers of Deputy Commissioner, Patiala-respondent No. 3. Smt. Darshana Devi, in obedience to the notice aforesaid, appeared before respondent No. 3 and submitted an application praying therein that copy of the application filed by respondent No. 5 had not been supplied to her and, therefore, the same along with other documents attached thereto be supplied to her so that the might be able to put in the reply. This application was filed on July 26, 1990 and was duly received in the office of respondent No. 3. Inspite of the prayer contained in the application aforesaid, respondent No. 3 made no document available to her. After few adjournments, she was told that she would be intimated further action in the matter in due course of time. It is pleaded that Mahant Jaspal Dass along with his mother made several visits to the office of respondent No. 3 but nothing was intimated to them. Ultimately, telegram was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala as also the Commissioner, Patiala Division by Shri Banwari Lal Goel, counsel for the petitioner wherein it was pleaded that neither the Deputy Commissioner-respondent No. 2 nor the District Officer Removal of Grievances Incharge- respondent No. 3 had jurisdiction in the matter. The said authorities were also informed of the result of civil litigation initiated by respondent No. 5 and ultimately, it was prayed that the proceedings initiated on the complaint filed by respondent No. 5 be dropped. When nothing was heard in the matter, petitioner submitted detailed reply on June 30, 1990 before respondent No. 3. In support of the contents contained in the application aforesaid, some documents were also annexed. At that stage when application after application filed by petitioner was being cold shouldered by yet keeping the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 5 alive, Jaspal Dass apprehending some danger to the invasion of his right attached to the office of Mahantship and management of the properties attached to the Dera, contacted a counsel at Chandigarh for moving an appropriate writ in the High Court, who in turn advised him to get hold of the proceedings and Zimni orders recorded by respondent No. 3 in the matter and then file a writ. Petitioner engaged the services of a lawyer at Patiala who moved an application for inspection of the file giving all the details in the application and further mentioning that the inspection of the record was desired as petitioner wanted to file writ petition in the High Court. On this application, respondent No. 2 asked for the report from the office and the Reader reported that there was no such file in the Court and further stated that the case pertained to the Dharamarth Branch and report should be obtained from there. Immediately thereafter report was obtained from the office of respondent No. 3, who reported that the file was already with respondent No. 2 in connection with some report to be forwarded to the State. These reports were made on the margin of the application, photo copy of which has been placed on the records of this petition as Annexure P-8. In the wake of the circumstances mentioned above and, in particular, when Mahant Jaspal Dass was tossed from one office to another and was kept on guessing all the proceedings that were pending and when meanwhile on May 12, 1992 respondent No. 1 gave notice-proclamation inviting applications for the appointment of Mahant of Dera Sullar, petitioner came to this Court by way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India asking for writ so as to quash notices, Annexures P-9 and P-10, as indicated in the earlier part of this judgment. 5. The Motion Bench on June 3, 1993 while issuing notice of motion for August 19, 1992, stayed operation of the impugned orders, Annexures P-5, P-9 and P-10. Resultantly, respondent were restrained from interfering with the possession, management and control of the Institution and the properties attached thereto. The matter, after receipt of written statements, was admitted and was ordered to be listed within two months on November 16, 1992. 6. On the pleadings as have been referred to above, Mr. P.K. Palli, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that notices, Annexures P-9 and P-10, are wholly without jurisdiction, in utter abuse of the executive powers which the respondents are holding and in complete negation of the rule of law and, thus, amount to invading the right, title and interest of petitioner-Institution at the hands of the officers of the State. The notices aforesaid are stated to be against the fundamental right of petitioner as granted under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India as also Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court would not like to go into various other issues arising in the petition as the learned counsel has confined his arguments to the very jurisdiction of respondents No. 2 and 3 to proceed in the matter by basically contending that under no conceivable law, rules or regulations or for that matter even instructions, the Deputy Commissioner and the district officer Removal of Grievances Incharge have jurisdiction to entertain an application filed by respondent No. 5 with an ultimate decision to appoint new Mahant of the Dera by completely ignoring the fact that Mahant Jaspal Dass stands installed as Mohtmim under the custom that governs the field. 7. The cause of petitioner has been opposed, both, by official respondents as also respondent No. 5, who have filed their separate written statements. Respondents No. 1 to 4 in their written statement filed through Navreet Singh Kang, I.A.S., Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, by way of preliminary objections plead that Jaspal Dass is not duly appointed Mohtmim of the Dera. The appointment of Mohtmim is governed by Shahi Pharman issued by the then Maharaja of Patiala on April 18, 1921. Under Article 13 of the Constitution, this Pharman continues to be in force. The appointment of Jaspal Dass was never approved by the revenue department of Punjab Government which is the successor State of erstwhile Patiala State. However, in connivance with the revenue officials he got his name entered in the mutation register and got the mutation sanctioned on April 26, 1974 in contravention of the provisions laid down in the Shahi Pharman and the instructions issued thereunder. Jaspal Dass, it is pleaded, is not competent to file the writ petition in the name of Dera Sullar. Certified copy of the Shahi Pharman and its true translation have been placed on the records of this case, as Annexure R-1. It is further pleaded that petitioner had alternative remedy by submitting an application for his appointment as Mohtmim to the Deputy Commissioner and the same, if filed, would be processed in accordance with law. On merits, it is admitted that Dera Sullar is a religious and charitable institution. It is also admitted that Mahant Brahm Rattan was duly appointed Mohtmim of the Dera and he died on April 2, 1974. Succession of Mohtmim is denied to be hereditary. The procedure for appointment of Mohtmim is laid down in the Shahi Pharman and the instructions regarding powers of Deodhi Mualla issued under Annexure R-2. The Bheikh or the sect may recommend the name of the eligible person but the appointment is made by the State Government. The appointment letter is issued in accordance with para 44 read with para 17 of the Standing Order No. 7 issued by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab. It is further pleaded that any Mohtmim appointed by the State Government is not empowered to execute a Will or to nominate anyone as his successor. It is also pleaded that the land attached to the petitioner Dera was gifted by Maharaja Karam Singh in 1891 Bikrami Samvat. Maufi was also granted to the said Dera by said Maharaja in 1891 B.K. Judgement render between Mahant Jaspal Das and respondent No. 5, it is stated, is not binding on the State. Filing of compliant by respondent No. 5 is, however, admitted. In pursuance thereof the then District Officer, Removal of Grievances had called upon Smt. Darshana Devi guardian of Jaspal Dass and the complainant to produce documents to prove their possession over the disputed land of the dera. The management of such deras, it is pleaded, is governed by Shahi Pharman issued by Deodhi Mualla. In addition to the shahi Pharman instructions were also issued wherein the procedure for appointment of Mohtmim was laid down in detail. Mahant Jaspal Dass and Smt. Darshana Devi, his mother, it is pleaded, for the mutation sanctioned in their favour in connivance with the revenue officials with a view to grab the property of the Dera and agricultural land measuring 675 bighas 15 biswas donated by Maharaja Karam Singh for the Institution in 1891 B.K. Jaspal Dass in Connivance withtherevenue officials andby taking the advantage of illegal entries in therevenue record in his name, has alienated and has allowed encroachments on the land to the extent of 669 bighas 06 biswas and now only 6.09 biswas of land is left with the Dera. Interference by the State in the functioning of Dera is denied. However, it is stated that the State is competent to regularise the appointments of Mohtmims so that they do not grab the properties of the Dera for their personal use. Shahi Pharman stipulates that Mohtmims would not be competent to alienate the properties of the Dera in any way. 8. Respondent No. 5, in his separate written statement, pleads that Dera Sullar was established by the Sovereign Rulers of Patiala State for the stay of Udasin Sadshus and for feeding those Sadhus, the Sovereign Rulers of Patiala State made endowments of 675 bighas 15 biswas of barren land infested with wild animals to the Dera which fetched a miserable income to the Dera to the tune of few hundred rupees by sale of Dhak leaves and grass. This is to an institution established by Udasin sect. The Mohtmim or Manager of this Dera has always been chosen and appointed by the Rulers from amongst Udasin Sadhus after screening various candidates as regards their good character and managerial ability. Jaspal Dass is denied to be present Mahant of the Dera. It is stated that he is only son of the previous Mahant Brahm Rattan, who had married in violation of the custom and tenets of the Udasin Sadhus and who died on April 2, 1974 when Jaspal Dass was only about 2-1/2 years old. The mother of Jaspal Dass in connivance with the revenue officials got mutation entered in her favour about the lands attached to the Dera. Jaspal Dass had had no right or authority to file the present writ on behalf of the Dera Sullar. It is also pleaded that there were Sikh Deras and non-Sikh-Deras and nonSikh deras in the State of POunjab. The Udasin Deras are non-Sikh-deras, which continue to be under the direct control of Sardar Sahib Deodhi Mualla and this office has now been succeeded by the Dharam Arth Wing of Deputy Commissioner's office. In so far as civil litigation, referred to above, in concerned, the same and result thereof has been admitted but it has also been pleaded that appeal arising out of the judgment passed by the first Appellant Court is still pending in this Court. 9. Petitioner, with the permission of the Court, filed replication and attached some documents along with the same which shall be discussed in the later part of the judgment. 10. Pleadings as have been extracted above, for the purpose of deciding the crucial question of jurisdiction of respondents No. 2 and 3 to deal with the matter and, in particular, for appointment of Mohtmim of the Dera in question, would thus reveal that whereas, the case of petitioner is that the official respondents have no jurisdiction in the matter and the appointment of Mohtmim of religious and charitable Institutions of Udasin Sampardai is governed by custom, the case of respondents is that it is the Pharman-e-Shahi of 1921 and the instructions issued from time to time that vest jurisdiction to make appointment of Mohtmim of the Dera and, therefore, no exception can be had to the proclamation notices, Annexures P-9 and P-10. 11. It is now time to see as to whether from Pharman-e-Shahi and the various instructions relied upon by the State and respondent No. 5, the official respondent has jurisdiction to make appointment of Mohtmim of religious and charitable institutions of Udasin Sampardai Annexure R-1 is Pharman-e-Shahi dated April 18, 1921 AD from Daya Kishan Kaul, Prime Minister. Same reads thus:- "Sanctioned. And instructions be issued for future that unless and until the appointment of any Mahant is approved by the Ijlas-e-Khas through the Deodhi Mualla no entry in the mutation of land or free hold (Muafi) be made in favour of the Mahant who may be entitled to receive from the Government any Dastar (Headgear) and Doshala (Robe of Honour) or any Bandhan (fixed stipend) Maufi (free hold) etc. and this may also be noted that all lands which relate to any Dera may not be considered as property of the Mahant and may not be entered in the official papers as property of the Mahant instead it is entered as the property of the Dera under the management of the Mahant. The Mahant would not be authorised to sell or mortgage the lands of the Dera. The revenue department be also intimated and his order be duly published in the gazette." This Pharman-e-Shahi is signed by Nihal Singh, Judicial Minister, Raghunath Singh, Home Minister, Gokal Chand, Foreign Minister, Dalip Singh, Revenue Secretary and Rala Ram, Chief Engineer, of the then Patiala State. Annexure R-2 is letter dated October 26, 1946 written to one Mr. Sodhi by S. Jaidev Singh Ji, Private Secretary to his Highness Shri 108 Maharajadhiraj Mahendra Bahadurji Patiala. It gives reference of some D.O. letter dated October 23, 1946 and further states that a statement showing the powers exercised and function performed by Deodhi Mualla department in regard to the control of Gurdwaras, Deras and other charitable Institutions in the State, is being sent. Annexure R2/1 contains the powers to be exercised in regard to Gurdwaras in the State. Paragraph 1 of the same reads thus:- "By virtue of the powers invested vide Pharman-e-Shahi dated 18th April, 1921 (copy attached) Sardar Sahib Deodhi Mualla is competent to recommend appointments and dismissals of a Mahant or a Mohtmim of religious institutions in the State. Thus the question of all religious institutions belonging to different communities is kept by the Ruler in his own hands and the management of religious institutions is made through Sardar Sahib Deodhi Mualla, who carries out and conveys His Highness' Gracious Commands." Annexure R-3 is a copy of Register of Revenue Fees grant in tehsil and District. Annexure R-4 is a copy of Book Map of Measurement of Land Maufidaran regarding Chaurasi Patiala under the Management of Miran Baksh resident of Kasba Baraur and Seikh Krim Bakhsh resident of Kasba Baraur and Seikh Krim Bakhsh. It is in the Book Map statement, aforesaid, that it is mentioned in the remarks column that land measuring 807 Bighas was granted by Maharaja Sahib Karam Singh deceased. Along with their written statement, respondents have also attached the Pepsu Code of Laws, Volume II, containing ordinance 2005 B.K. and Gazette Notification dated October 12, 1956 containing the State Reorganisation Act, 1956. 12. Mr. Anand Swaroop, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5 and also Mr. Arun Walia, Assistant Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the official-respondents contend that Pharman-e-Shahi issued by the erstwhile Ruler of a Princely State is law and, therefore, the official-respondents have ample powers to deal with appointment of a Mahant or a Mohtmim as also properties attached to religious institutions. Pharman-e-Shahi of the year 1921 and the instructions that have been referred to above, it is argued, clothe the Deputy Commissioners, who is Incharge of the Deodhi Mualla to deal with the matter of appointment of a Mahant or Mohtmim by way of making preliminary enquiries and it is under Allocation of Business Rules, 1986 that the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) has been given powers to determine all matters relating to Customary Law, Court of Wards, Jagirs and Maufis, Dharmarth Lands and Properties of the erstwhile Pepsu State, Grant-in-aid to religious institutions and incurring of expenditure on the construction or repairs of places of worship, and establishment of Dharmarth Staff, as all these matters come under the department of Revenue and Rehabilitation. For the proposition that the Pharmane-Shahi issued by the erstwhile Ruler of Princely State is law and continues to be law till repealed or substituted by a competent Legislature, the learned counsels rely upon Ammeerunnissa Begum v. Mahboob Begam, AIR 1953 S.C. 91, State of Rajasthan v. Sajjan Lal, AIR 1975 S.C. 706, and Dharam Das v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 S.C. 1069. 13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, this Court is of the considered view that it is true that the Pharman-e-shahi issued by the erstwhile Ruler of a Princely State is law and continues to be law till repealed or substituted by a competent Legislature. However, the Pharman-e-shahi that has been relied upon would still not vest the Deputy Commissioner or even the Financial Commissioner with the powers to make appointment of religious institutions and, therefore, proceedings initiated by the official-respondents on the complaint made by respondent No.5, culminating into issuing proclamation notices, Annexing P-9 and P-10, inviting applications for the appointment of Mohatmim of the Dera of religious institutions is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. By virtue of Annexure R-1, Pharman-e-shahi dated 18.4.1921, instructions were issued for future that unless and until the appointment of any Mahant is approved by the Ijlas-I-Khas through the Deodhi Mualla no entry in the mutation of land or free-hold (Muafi) be made in favour of the Mahant, who may be entitled to receive from the Government any Headgear, Robe of Honour or fixed stipend. Further, all lands relating to any Dera would not be considered property of Mahant and could not be recorded in the official papers as property of the Mahant, instead it would be entered as property of the Dera under the management of Mahant. The Pharman-e-shahi is in two parts. One part deals with regard to entries of the mutation of land to be made in favour of Mahant, who might be entitled to Headgear etc., mentioned above, till such time the appointment of Mahant concerned was approved. The second part deals with ownership of the property attached to the religious institutions and in turn spells out that such lands shall not be entered into the name of any Mahant and instead shall be property of the institution. As is the case of the respondents themselves that agricultural land measuring 675 Bighas 15 Biswas was donated to the Dera by Maharaja Karam Singh in 1891 B.K. that is far prior to the issuance of the above-mentioned Pharmana-e-Shahi, whatever entries were to be made in the mutation of the land had since already been made. That apart, present was not a case of approval of appointment of a Mahant and that, too, of the kind, who was entitled to receive from the Government any Head-gear, Robe of honour or fixed stipend. The second part of the Pharman-e-Shahi is of no relevance, as in this case, it is the competence of official- respondents to make appointment of a Mahant, which has been questioned. Annexure R-2, letter dated 26.10.1946 written to Jaidev Singh Private Secretary to his Highness, the then Maharaja of Patiala, which also makes a reference of D.O. letter No. 1276/H dated 23.10.1946 with regard to control of Gurdwaras, Deras and other Charitable institutions in the State as also Annexure R-2/1, which is not a part of Pharman-e-Shahi, even though the same have been annexed with the written statement as one document, also do not advance the case of the respondents Annexure R2 and R2/1, came into begin in 1946 far after the Pharman-e-Shahi, (sic) wholly ununderstandable as to from which part of the Pharman-e-Shahi of 1921, it has been mentioned that the Deputy Commissioner was competent to make appointment or removal of Mahant of religious institution of the State. The matter does not end there as vide circular No. 2 dated 13.6.2006 = 1949 A.D. two departments i.e. Deodhi Mualla and Karor department had been amalgamated in one viz. Deodhi Mualla Department comprising of Pundan, Ragies, Grandhies, Pujaries, Annual Holders, Rasdat and Dharam Chithes payable from the State exchequer were transferred to the Home Department, Pepsu. For the control of another section, i.e. management of religious institutions, such as Gurdwaras, Dharamshalas etc. formerly managed by either Dheodhi Mualla or Gudwara Interim Board, a Dharamarth Board consisting of the members mentioned in the circular aforesaid had been constituted. On 19.7.1949, Deodhi Mualla, Patiala, issued yet another circular, which has direct bearing upon the controversy involved in this case. The same runs thus:- "It has been noticed that in certain quarters there is some misunderstanding regarding the working of the newly constituted Dharam Arth Board. In clarification of this office Circular No. 2 dated 13.2.2006, it is hereby circulated for the information of all concerned that the Dharamarth Board has been formed under Roznamcha commands for controlling the property and administration of the Gurdwaras, Deras, and other religious institution of Sikh Sampardas only. It has no control over the religious institutions of non-Sikh Sampardas. (Emphasis supplied)" Along with his replication, the petitioner has annexed a letter bearing No HD-161E/51 dated 26.2.1951 issued by the Government of Patiala and East Punjab states Union, Home Department, on 26.2.1951. It deals with some application in respect of complaint to Dharamarth Board regarding possession of Dera and was addressed to one Pandit Krishna Nand Shastri through Mahant Amar Parkash Chela Mahant Krishna Nand, Dera Udasina Baba Khaili, Khanaura, Tehsil Nabha. It is reads as under:- "In reply to your above application, it is made clear that the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, has been apprised of the matter in writing that Dharamarth Board controls and manages only Gurdwaras and has no concern whatsoever in respect of other institutions." 14. The petitioner also placed on record Annexure P-16, order of the Ijlas-e-Khas dated 8.11.1946, vide which intention to appoint a Committee formanagemetn of the Sikh Gurdwaras in the State so earlier expressed in the pharman-e-Shahi dated 2.9.1946 was taken to its logical ends by actually appointing a Managing Committee for management of the Sikh Gurdwaras in the State. This Committee was to hold office during the pleasure of Rajpramukh and ceased to function when the Gurdwara Legislation was enacted and was enforced. This Committee was to assume the functions, which were then performed in respect of Sikh Gurdwaras by the Deodhi Department and was also to exercise the powers vested in the Sardar Sahib Deodhi Mualla. It is, thus amply proved on the records of the case that Deodhi Mualla Department, which was, as it appears, established by Maharaja of Patiala, who was then Maharaj of erstwhile Princely State of Patiala, later came to perform the functions as were entrusted to it from time to time through various instructions and Pharman-e-Shahi issued on that behalf even after the said Princely State merged in the Union of India. It is possible that till such time Interim Gurdwara Board was constituted in 1946, the said Deodhi Mualla might be working under the overall supervision of the Deputy Commissioner, but it is amply made out that the Deodhi Mualla was to perform the functions, which were exclusively related to Sikh Gurdwaras and had no concern whatsoever in respect of other institutions. Annexure P-12 makes it further clear that management of the religious institutions such as Gurdwaras etc. formerly managed by the Deodhi Mualla or Gurdwara Interim Board, were managed from 1949 onwards by Dharamarth Board and the Dharmarth Board was to control and manage only the Gurdwaras as is made out from Annexure P-15 also. Again, Annexure P-13 would manifest that Dharmarth Board had been formed for controlling and administering Gurdwaras, Deras and other religious institutions of Sikh Sampardas (domination) only. On the basis of the documents that have been placed on record and have been discussed in detail, a finding has, thus, to be returned that Deodhi Mualla after 1949 merged in the Dharmarth Board and the said Board was to manage only Sikh religious institutions, which institutions admittedly after introduction of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, are now managed by the functionaries constituted under the said Act. 15. I would like to mention the observations of Single Judge of this Court in Krishan Gopal Kataria v. State of Punjab, 1986(1) P.L.R. 613, which are as follows:- "Even if for the sake of argument it be accepted that this order was a Farman-e-Shahi and was law as contemplated by Article 13 of the Constitution of India, it was not enforceable, or workable. Sardar Sahib Deorhi Mualla came to be abolished. There is no institution like Sardar Sahib Deorhi Mualla in the present democratic Punjab, as such the State Government has not authorised any officer to perform the functions of Sardar Sahib Deorhi Mualla. So, there is no officer from whom the merger of a religious property can seek permission." 16. The authorities, thus, absolutely had no jurisdiction whatsoever to deal with appointment of Mahant or Mohtmim of a non-Sikh religious and charitable institution, as the petitioner admittedly is, and, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint put up before him by respondent No. 5. Proclamation Notices, Annexures P-9 and P-10, were thus, issued by the authority lacking inherent jurisdiction in the matter, and therefore, there is no choice but for to quash the same. Annexure P-9 and P-10 are consequently quashed. I have not examined as to what is the exact procedure for appointment of Mahant or Mohtmim of religious and charitable institutions not belonging to Sikhs for variety of reasons. Positive case of the petitioner is that it is the custom which governs the field and Bheikh is the only competent authority to make appointment of Mahant or Mohtmim. It was an admitted position while the petitioner and respondent No. 5 were litigating in the civil suit, instituted by the latter, result whereof has already been mentioned above. Even the Pharman-e-Shahi of 1921, which was mainly pleaded by the respondents to defend its action, culminating into proclamation notices, Annexure P-9 and P-10, had never gone beyond vesting powers in Deorhi Mualla of approving the appointment of Mahant or Mohtmim. Further, it is for the respondent-authorities to point out the provisions of law, under which they proceeded in the matter. 17. Before, I part with this judgment, I would like to mention that the case proceeded on the complaint of respondent No. 5 and the contention of Mr. Palli, learned counsel for the petitioner, has some merit that it is on influence exerted by him that the respondents and in particular Deputy Commissioner arrogated to himself the powers, which he inherently lacked. The sequence of events is such that it impels me to return a finding that the respondent-authorities moved in the matter on some extraneous considerations. Even though respondent No. 5 had lost his battle before the Civil Court up to the District Judge and had obtained no interim order from the High Court in the Regular Second Appeal, preferred by him, the Deputy Commissioner not only entertained the application, but kept on considering the matter without apprising the petitioner the kind of the case, it was to meet. The Mahant through his mother made number of applications apprising Deputy Commissioner that he was duly appointed which stand to his had been vindicated in a Court of competent jurisdiction. Through notice that was issued to Mahant through his mother, he was only asked to show the kind of possession and the documents relating thereto but ultimately the Deputy Commissioner issued proclamation notices Annexures P-9 and P-10 for appointment of Mahant or Mohtmim. The petitioner had annexed various documents which really reveal that the Mahant was kept in dark and was tossed from one office to another without making him available the proceedings which were being held and the copies of the orders passed from time to time. No sooner Annexures P-9 and P-10 came into being, respondent No. 5 made an application for his appointment as Mahant. It is in these unusual circumstances that even through there was no order but only proclamation notices, Annexures P-9 and P-10, that the High Court intervented in the matter by granting petitioner, the interim relief, indicated above. all these facts further reveal that respondents No. 5 was assured all kind of help in the matter, even though he had lost before the Civil Court. 18. For the reasons mentioned above, Annexures P-9 and P-10 are quashed and this writ petition is allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 3,000/-. Petition allowed.