Shri Dattatraya Maiidir Trust, Ameenpara Ward v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case at a glance
Held
The Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, holding that no strong case had been made for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction. It directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory alternative forum under Section 8 of the Act, 1951.
Provisions considered
Summary
AI-generated summaryWritten by AI from the judgment text below. It is not part of the judgment and is not legal advice — read the original before relying on it.
Facts
The petitioner, Shri Dattatraya Maiidir Trust, challenged an order of the Sub‑Divisional Officer and Registrar Public Trust, Raipur, which cancelled a prior order that had entered changes to the names of trustees in the trust register. The petitioner sought to set aside the cancellation order under the Chhattisgarh Public Trusts Act, 1951.
Issues
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with the Registrar’s order cancelling the earlier order,
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek relief under the statutory alternative forum provided by Section 8 of the Act, 1951.
Holding
The Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, holding that no strong case had been made for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction. It directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory alternative forum under Section 8 of the Act, 1951.
Reasoning
The Court applied well‑settled precedent that the High Court should not interfere with a statutory procedure unless a very strong case is made. It noted that the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory alternative relief and therefore the writ petition was dismissed.
Practical significance
The decision reinforces that writ petitions under Article 226 must be supported by a very strong case and that parties must first exhaust the statutory alternative remedies available under the relevant Act before seeking judicial review.
Judgment
State Secretaiy, Departiuent of ReUgious Trusts and Endowittents, Mailtralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bbawan, Raipur (CG). the Trust CoUector Coniiaittee, Shri Dattatrava Mandir Trust, Raipur (C.G.) Registrar Public Trust, Constitution under C.G. PubUc Tmst Act 1951, being Sub Divisioual Officer, Op'posite R.D.A. Buildiag, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Tarait Prakash Suiha, Sub Divisional Officer & Registrar Public Trust, Raipur (C.G.] Shri Chetan Dandawate, Secretary, Shri Dutta Maildir Trust Cominittee, Mahsmiaya Maiidir Wai-d, Raipw(C.G.j Shri. Yashwaat Rao Girepuiije, S/o Late Braialiapuri Narayaji Dattatraya Maudir preniises, Raipur (C.G.) Girepunje, R/o WRIT PETITION UNDE.R ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Virendra Sliaraia, Advocate for the petitioaer. Shri Aruii Sao, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 3. O R DE R (OraO (Passed on this 11th day of August, 2009) The petitioner has filed fhis petition, impugniag the order dated
25.7.2009 (-Annexure P/l), passed by fhe Sub Divisional Ofiicer aad Registrar PubUc Trust,- Raipur ia Case No. 01 B/ 113(4} year ^ ^^•i'.l '®L . fif,r^\ '- ^'.' 'sss& & Si S V 'ik.. '^'SSK-^'" 2008-09 (Yashwaat Rao Gu-punje & aiiother Vs. State of Chhattisgarh).
Learued counsel appearing for the petitioner subniits fhat tlie petitioner Shri Dattatraya Maiidir Trust is a registered trust. On
19.8.2008 (Annexure P/2) tlie petitioner-Trust, fhrough its tinstee naniely Shii Yashwaitt Rao Girepunje/Respoiident No.6 filed aa, application under Section 9 (1) of '&ie CMiattisgarh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (for short 'Uie Act, 1951') in. prescribed format to fhe respondent No.3 for ciiaiige of the entries in trust register for change of names of soine of fhe trustees. The respondent No.2 after followiag fhe prescribed procedure passed the order on 12.1.2009 imder Section 9 (2) ofthe Act, 1951. This oi-der was conditional where naiaes of fhe ta-ustees were difected to be entered on fu.mishin.g five poiuts infoi'aiation/docuiaents vnttiia seven days, faifaig which fhe order was to be caacelled autoiriatically. The requisite conditions were fulfilled on
19.1.2009 an.d consequentiy the entries were inade in the register as per ttie order dated 12.1.2009. Thereafter, fhe respondent No.5 (Shii Chetan. Daiidawate), Secretaiy ofthe Trust, filed as. application on 2.7.2009 before fhe respondent No.3 for quashiag of fhe order dated 12.1.2009. By the impugned order dated 25.7.2009 (Annexure P/1) respondeiit No.3 canceUed the order dated 12,1.2009, heace this
Leained counsel appearuig for fhe peutiouer further subniits tliat Section 8 (1) of tiie Act, 1951 provides tliat aiiy workiag trustee or person haviiig iaterested ia a plibUc ti-ust or aiiy property found to be trust property, aggrieved by any findm.g of tlie <:^^3®"",.. '•Si-S'^SSte.- "•"SSigi i: j '•^y' :. %>. tj •a Registrar inay institute a suit in. a Civil Court to have such fiiidiug set aside or inoditled. The respondent No.6 iastead of Lg a civil suit, beiag aggrieved by ttte order dated 12.1.2009, passed by the RegistraT, had filed an application/coraplauit on
2.7.2009. The respondent No.3, contraiy to fhe provisions of Section 8 oftheAct, 1951 entertaiaed the applicatioii/coiiiplaiat inade by the respondent No.6 and by the impugned order dated
25.7.2009 (Amiexure P/1) recalled the oixler dated 12.1.2009, which is not sustaiaable ia law. c; I have heard leamed couiisel appeai-iug for fhe parties aad perused the docuitteuts appended thereto.
Section 8 of fhe Act, 1951 provides for filmg of civH siiit against auy of the findia.gs of fhe Registr-ar, Pubtic Trust. The Registrar, Public Trust has passed fhe order dated 25.7.2009 (Annexure P/'l) uuder the provisions of Section 9 (2) ofthe Act, 1951. Sub- section (3) of Section 9 of the Act, 1951 provides fb.at "7?ze provisions ofsection 8 shall apply to anyfinding under this section as they apply to a findirtg under section 6. Thus, if a finding is recorded uiider flie provisions of Section 9 (1) & (2) of the Act, 1951, aa aggrieved party luay inove Qie civU Court agaiust. the fuidiiig of fhe Registrar, PubUc T'rust. Thus, fhe petitioner has alteniative statutoiy reniedy of chaUengiag tlie order of the Regisfa-ar, PubUc Trust, passed under Section 9 ofthe Act, 1951, in. civit suit. Haviag perused ttie relevaiit provisions of law, it is obvious tliat aii altemative effecti.ve 'statutory reinedy is available to the petitiouer under Section 8 of the Act, 1951.It is weU settled that norjiially fhe Migh Court sboilld aot iiiterfere if tliere is an adequate, statutoiy, efficacious altemative reinedy is provided by fhe statute, party niust exliaust the statutor}7 reiaedy before resorting to writ jurisdiction.
A Coustitution Bench of the I-Ion'ble Supreiue Court ia K. S. Others1, observed ttiat "the nsniedy provided for in Article 226 of fh.e Constitution is a discretionary reiaedy and the High Court has alwa}rs the discretion to refuse to graat aay writ if it is satisfied fhat ffae aggrieved paity can. have an adequate or suitable reUef elsewhere. " The said decision has been referred aad followed subsequently in a catena of decisions that if a relief cannot be graated by fhe jurisdiction inay be invoked. In the present set of facts, all 'Qie aufhority, fhe writ appeUate reUef sought for by the petitioner caa be granted by the civil Court.
On fhe question of availabiUty of alteraati.ve reinedy, Supreuie Court ia State of H.P. and others v. Gnjarat Ambaja Cement and auother2, observed as under:
We shall first deal "ivifh the plea regarding altemative reiaedy as raised by ftie appeUaut State. Except for a period when Article 226 was amended by the Constitution (Forty- relatuig to second Aniendm.eat) Aet, 1976, fhe power altemative reiaedy has been considered to be a rule of setf- icaposed limitatinn. essentially a rule of poUcy, convenience and discretion aad never a rule of law. Despite It the existence of aii altemative reniedy, is wifhia. juiisdiction of discretion of fh.e High Court to gTant relief uiider Article 226 of the Constitution. At fhe saine tuae, it caiiaot be lost sight of that fhough fhe niatter relatmg to an ' 2
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, holding that no strong case had been made for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction. It directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory alternative forum under Section 8 of the Act, 1951.
What was the main issue before the Court?
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with the Registrar’s order cancelling the earlier order,
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
C.G. PubUc Tmst Act, 1951; Constitution of India — art. 226; CMiattisgarh Public Trusts Act, 1951; Uie Act, 1951.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Chhattisgarh High Court, on 11 Aug 2009. The bench was SATISH K AGNIHOTRI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.