Dismissed¶26

Anil Soni v. Union of India and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Nov 2025CWP/18508/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of writ petition against religious body / society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Church of North India, Diocese of Chandigarh); Article 12 “other authority” test; inquiry into government grant/aid (Rs.17 lacs Government of India sanction, Annexures P-15/P-16); internal affairs of religious organization not a public function; disputed questions of fact not amenable to writ Court; dismissal with liberty to pursue available remedy; reliance on co-ordinate Bench decision in Rohit Paul v. Union of India, CWP-24721-2024 (decided 08.11.2024); Punjab and Haryana High Court; Justice Suvir Sehgal; decision date 10.11.2025; CWP-18508-2025 (O&M).

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy available to him in accordance with law. ¶26

Anil Soni Vs Union of India and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty granted to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy available to him in accordance with law.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.5 (Diocese of Chandigarh – Church of North India) is amenable to writ jurisdiction, i.e., whether the writ petition against it is maintainable. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

The dispute raised in the present petition — ousting of the petitioner from administration and management of institutes/organisations run by CNI — pertains to disputed questions of fact that cannot be gone into by a writ Court.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Neither Annexure P-15 (letter of Department of Finance, Government of India sanctioning Rs.17 lacs to the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur) nor Annexure P-16 shows that any grant or aid has been given by the Government of Punjab to respondent No.5; the contention that respondent No.5 is financially aided by the Government fails.

¶22

Key takeaways

The writ petition is not maintainable against respondent No.5 (Diocese of Chandigarh – Church of North India); accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (certiorari) by Anil Soni against Diocese of Chandigarh – Church of North India (respondent No.5), seeking quashing of its letter dated 05.11.2024 (Annexure P-5) declaring him a member “not in good standing” and debarring him from participation in church administration and association with CNI bodies at all levels, DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. Counsel's plea that respondent No.5, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, is an “other authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution backed by state funding failed: Annexure P-15 was a Department of Finance, Government of India sanction of Rs.17 lacs to the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur for a community centre at Christ Church, Hoshiarpur, and Annexure P-16 was CNI's own letter seeking the Bishop's permission for construction — neither showed any grant or aid from the Government of Punjab. Following the co-ordinate Bench decision in Rohit Paul Versus Union of India and others (CWP-24721-2024, decided 08.11.2024), where it was recorded that internal affairs of a religious organization are not a public function discharged by the Government and that amenability to writ jurisdiction requires discharge of a public duty/public function, the Court held the dispute — ouster of the petitioner from administration/management of institutes run by CNI — to comprise disputed questions of fact beyond a writ Court. Petition dismissed; liberty granted to take recourse to the remedy available in accordance with law. Coram: Justice Suvir Sehgal (oral); decided 10.11.2025.

¶1

CWP-18508-2025 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

(105) CWP-18508-2025 (O&M) Date of decision:- 10.11.2025

¶4

Anil Soni ...Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union of India and others ...Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL

¶8

Present:- Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Karan Kumar Jund, Senior Panel Counsel, Union of India for respondent No.1.

¶10

Mr. Siddharth Sandhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

¶11

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)

¶12

CM-15691-CWP-2025

¶13

For the reasons given in the application, it is allowed.

¶14

Documents as Annexures P-15 to P-18 are taken on record.

¶15

CWP-18508-2025

¶16

This petition has been filed inter alia for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing impugned letter dated 05.11.2024, Annexure P-5, issued by Diocese of Chandigarh – Church of North India (for short “CNI”), respondent No.5, whereby petitioner has been declared to be a member “not in good standing” and he has been debarred from participating in the administration of the church and from being associated with the bodies of CNI at all levels.

¶17

At the outset, counsel for the petitioner has been asked to satisfy that respondent No.5 is amenable to writ jurisdiction. He has also been confronted with the observations of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-24721-2024, titled

¶18

PARDEEP NAUTIYAL 2025.11.15 14:57I attest to the accuracy and as Rohit Paul Versus Union of India and others , decided on 08.11.2024. authenticity of this order/judgment

¶19

CWP-18508-2025 (O&M) -2-

¶20

Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner, has made a reference to Annexures, P-15 and P-16, to contend that respondent No.5 has been receiving grant from the Government of Punjab and would fall within the ambit of “other authority” under Article 12 of Constitution of India. It is his contention that CNI, which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court and the present petition assailing impugned action can be maintained.

¶21

I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner as well as examined the documents placed on the record.

¶22

A perusal of Annexure P-15 shows that it is a letter issued by Department of Finance, Government of India, sanctioning a grant of Rs.17 lacs to the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, under discretionary quota for construction of a community centre at Christ Church, Green View Park, Hoshiarpur. By letter dated 04.10.2022, Annexure P-16, CNI – respondent No.5, has sought permission of the Bishop, Diocese of Chandigarh, CNI, for construction of the community hall in the church complex. Neither of these two letters show that any grant or aid has been given by the Government of Punjab to respondent No.5. Argument by counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.5 is being financially aided by the Government falls flat.

¶23

The question of maintainability of writ petition against respondent No.5 came up for adjudication before a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rohit Paul’s case ( supra ), wherein challenge was laid to the election of respondent No.5 on the allegation that it was illegal and a direction was sought to conduct fresh elections. After considering contentions of the petitioner, this Court specifically recorded PARDEEP NAUTIYAL 2025.11.15 14:57I attest to the accuracy andthat no detail has been provided about any public function discharged by the authenticity of this order/judgment

¶24

CWP-18508-2025 (O&M) -3-

¶25

religious body, nor is there any material on the record to show the inter se control and relationship amongst the church and the institute. This Court gave a categoric finding that writ jurisdiction would not be an appropriate remedy merely because of some remote and non-proximate cascading effect being suggested or alleged by a litigant. This Court recorded that internal affairs of a religious organization are not a public function discharged by the Government and it does not amount to any public service as well. This Court recorded that an activity, which renders institutions/body amenable to writ jurisdiction, must fulfill the test of being a public duty or discharge of a public function, which is not satisfied. Dispute raised in the present petition pertains to ousting of petitioner from administration and management of institutes/organisations run by CNI, which are disputed questions of fact, that cannot be gone into by a writ Court.

¶26

For the reasons recorded above and judgment in Rohit Paul’s case ( supra ), this Court is of the view that writ petition is not maintainable against respondent No.5. As a result, present writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶27

Liberty is, however, granted to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy available to him in accordance with law.

¶28

(SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE

¶29

10.11.2025 Pardeep

¶30

Whether Speaking/Reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶31

PARDEEP NAUTIYAL 2025.11.15 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Anil Soni v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Soni v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rani Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Manpreet Kaur Vs Capital Small Finance Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Khushal Vs Hdfc Bank Limited

Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

The Bargari Co. Op L and C Society Ltd. Vs the State of Punjab and Others

Hardev Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.