Dismissed

Shiv Kumar v. Registrar Public Trust Cum Coll. and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC3 Jul 2012WA/420/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of a writ petition seeking to challenge an order of the Registrar passed in a matter involving temple administration, where the original petitioner had no locus standi.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with a direction that the appellant take other legal remedies available in law.

What the court decided

Shiv Kumar Vs Registrar Public Trust Cum Coll… — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

'"t]" f- '•<..

Fresh Cause title

CF0000188379

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WRIT APPEAL N0. 420 / 2010

¶6

WRITAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 2fl) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT fAPPEAL TO DIVISION BENCHI ACT. 2006

¶7

Appellant Petltioner

¶8

Shiv Kumar, aged 36 years (at present 53 years), S/o Rangriath PuJari,ResIdent ofRam Mandir, Bemetara Distt. Durg.

¶9

Respondents

¶10

Versus 1! • 1, The Registrar,Public Trusf cum Collector, Durg.

¶11

TheSubDjvisionalOfficer, Bemetara, District Durg.

¶12

y 3. The Tahsildar, Bemetara, District Durg.

¶13

..><."^"^'/'
^w^
^.
4^
,.•.•• \ ^
A'
^^s?
<0A

¶14

Shri Pramod Shastri, Ganjpara, Durg Road, Bemetara, District .

¶15

Durg.

¶16

^/5. Shri BaldevSingh Thakur, Durg Road, nea r Rata n Ta 1 kies, Bemetara, District Durg.

¶17

J 6. ShriSantosh Choubey, Advocate, Resident of Ward No. 8, Bemetara, District Durg.

¶18

ShriRekhFajSharma,WardNQ^l Pikri; Bemetara, District Durg.

¶19

J 8. Shri RamkhjlawanSahu,Asslstant GovernmentPleader/Residentof WardN®.5,Bemetara,;District Durg.

¶20

1. Shrt. Hathulal Kasar, Resident of Ward No. 6, Bemetara, District Durg.

¶21

BILASPUR DATED: 17/04/2012

¶22

NSBL FOR THEAPPELLANT
g.lu^auw V^»^^^X '
II 1 U i^.

¶23

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶24

DIVISION BBNCH

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLEMR. ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE 88 HON'BLB MR. G. MINHAJUDDIH. JJ.

¶26

WRIT APPEAL N0. 420/2010

APPELLANT

Shiv Kumar

VBRSUS

RESPONDENTS The Registrar, Public Trust cura Collector, Durg and othera.

¶31

WRFT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(lt OF THE CHHAmSGARH HIGH COTJRT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCHl ACT. 2006.

¶32

Presenfc- Mr. Ravish Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjay S. Agrawal, Advocate for the appellant.

¶33

Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate General for State.

¶34

Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate for the respondents No. 3,5,6,7 & 8.

¶35

ORDER

¶36

(Passed on 03/07/2012)

¶37

The foUowing order of the Coiirt was uassed bv

¶38

Abhay Manohar Sapre, Js-

¶39

Tbis is aa appeal filed by fhe writ petitioner of W.P. No. 364/1993 under Section 2(1) of fhe Chliattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Beuch) Act, 2006 against fhe orderdated 28/9/2010 passed in. aforeinentioned writ petition.

¶40

By fhe impugned order, fhe leamed Siugle Judge dismissed fhe writ petition filed by the appeUant aad iu consequence declmed to graut fhe reUefl[s) clauned by the appeUaat/petitioner in the writ petition.

¶41

i-1(l

¶42

So fhe quesUon, which arises for consideration in this appeal is whefher the leamed Siagle Judge was justi&ed in disniissing the appeUant's writ petition?

¶43

Facts ofthe case Ue m. a narrow coinpass:-

¶44

One Gaupat Ram Vcnna a resident of area caUed ''Bem.elara" ffled au application under Section 26 of fhe M. P. PubUc Tmst Act (for short caBed fhe^'AcC} before the Registrar Public Trust Bemetara being Case No. 4/B113 (4)-88-89 ngnmst two person-namely Shri Vausti Bhushau Vajpai and Shri Raagaath. It was aUeged fhat so far as Shri Vajpai was concemed; he was Serverakar whereas so far as Shri Raugnath was conceraed, he was workiag as F*ujan of one Mandir situated at Beiaetara known as-Shri Raaachaadra Murti Mandir. The applicaut of this appUcation aUeged instances of conunittiag nusmanageiiient by these two persons iu fhe affau-s ofthis temple, which owned temple and lauds etc. The Registrar by order dated 28.9.91 entertauied fhe application aad issued certain directions in relation to the affairs of the teniple and its property by constitutmg one coininittee coasisting of meinbers froin Public and TahsUdar of the area was made Chairman to supervise.

¶45

Shri Raagnath (non-appUcaut No. 2 of fhis application) aud who elahned to be workuig as Pujari of the. temple at that relevant tlme, felt aggrieved of this order of fhe Registrar and ffled a wnt pctition beiug M. P. No 3821 of 1991. This writ petition was dismissed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 28.1.1992 resultmg iu afGrmation of fhe order dated 28.9.91. Shri Rangnath fhen did not pursue fhis Utigation aad later died.

¶46

-""»..

¶47

»r •^sy

¶48

The appeUaat clamiag to be the son df Shri Raagaath ftien felt aggrieved aad filed the writ petition challengiag the same order dated 28.9.91 passed by the Registrar PubUc Trust. It is this writ petition wtuch was disniissed by the Writ Court (learued Single Judge) by fhe impugned order which has given rise to filmg of this appeal.

¶49

Having heard the leamed Counsel for the parties and on perusal ofthe record offhe case, we fiad no inerit iu fhe appeal.

¶50

In our considered view, filiag of the writ petition by fhe appellaat to challenge fhe order of the Registrar dated 28.9.91 out ofwhich fhis appeal arise itselfwas a inisconceived atteiupt on his part as he had no ifgttt to chaBenge such order ia his own right. It was for the simple reason tfaat firstty he was not party to such ordcr passed by Registrar and secondly fhe one who was party to such order i.e. his fafher had chaUenged the said order in the writ petition being M.P. No 3821 of91 aad the High Court by order dated 28.1.92 had disinissed the said writ petition. This order of the writ Court fherefore attamed finalily,

¶51

Once the High Court upheld the order at the instance of appeUant's father iu his writ petition then no one had auy right to chaUenge such order except Shri Ranguath and fhat too in furfher appeal aad on his death by his legal representative provided cause of action survived in fheir favour aad any right, or estate in. relation to subject inatter of ftie writ petition devolved upon Tiim (appellant), it was not done,

•,.^-S^^SS^'Ki.

'•"^.

K:syK:'•":"Vti"-

Iu our opinion therefore, fhe appeUant (writ petitioner) had no right to file the second writ petition iudependently in his own r^ht to chaUenge such order of the Registear.

¶57

In ftie light of this admitted legal position eniei^ing fiTom fhe record of fhe case, the writ petitk>n filed by fhe appeUant was inisconceived. It was therefore, rightly disniissed so also this appeal which is equaUy nusconceived and deserved dismissal.

¶58

¶59

Before partmg wifh the case, we onty consider it apposite to observe that fhe appeUant would be fice to take auy ofher legal remedy as may be available to him in law ia relation to fhe aBairs of the teinple ui question except to challenge fhe order dated 28.9.91 passed by the Registrar referred above,

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

Abhay Manohar Sapre Judge -

¶62

Tiwari^

¶63

I1! ::ll

¶64

^^c^^^":-:"^'^'^^^^•'

Shiv Kumar v. Registrar Public Trust Cum Coll. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Shiv Kumar v. Registrar Public Trust Cum Coll. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.L.Taori Vs Commissioner Central Excise Raipur

Commissionr Central Excise Vs M/S Vindhya Telelink Ltd.

Gopal Oil Mills Pvt.Ltd. Vs Municipal Counsel Bilha and Ors.

Ambika Namdeo and Ors. Vs Awdesh Singh Yadav and Ors.

D.P. Sharaf Vs S.E.C.L. and Anr.

Vs