Om Shanti Samita Sheorinarayan v. Sheorinarayan Temple And Math

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WA No. 153 of 2017 • Om Shanti Samita Sheorinarayan Registration No. 743/1993 Through Its President Virendra Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Chhedilal Agrawal, Aged About 53 Years, Occupation Business, R/o Ward No.6, Mahantpara Sheorinarayan, Thana Sheorinarayan, Civil & Revenue District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh).

---- Appellant/Intervener

Versus

1. Sheorinarayan Temple And Math Registered Public Turst, Through Managing Trustee Mahant Ramsunder Das, Chela Late Vaishnav Das, Residence Of Sheorinarayan Temple And Math, Sheorinarayan, Civil & Revenue District Janjgir- Champa (Chhattisgarh).

2. J. N. Thakur, Secretary Of Sheorinarayan Temple And Math, S/o Shri Nagendranath Thakur, Aged About 59 Years R/o Purani Basti Raipur, Civil & Revenue District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

3. Registrar Of Public Turst-Cum Collector/ District Magistrate Bilaspur, Now Present District Janjgir- Champa (Chhattisgarh).

4. Sub Divisional Officer, Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa, Old District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh).

---- Respondents For Appellant :

Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent 1 :

Shri R.K.Kesharwani, Advocate Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Agrawal, J Order On Board Per Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, C.J.

05/05/2017 The appellant is an intervener in Writ Petition No.286 of 1995, which has since been transferred from the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. 2.

He challenges the decision of the learned Single Judge setting aside the order of the Registrar under the Public Trusts Act, who is also the Collector of

Bilaspur District. Through that order, an Administrator was appointed to look into the affairs of the Trust.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned order could not have been made because there are acts of misfeasance, malfeasance, maladministration, etc. as could be attributed to the persons controlling that Trust, and therefore, the appointment of administrator should have been upheld. 4.

The fact of the matter remains that initially there was an order on 09.05.1994 issued by the authority under the Public Trust Act. That was challenged in Writ Petition No. 2241/1994 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. That writ petition was ordered on 28.06.1994 directing the Registrar, Public Trusts under Public Trust Act that before giving effect to the order dated 09.05.1994 full opportunity of hearing should be afforded to the writ petitioner, on the alleged various complaints received by the Registrar. As is apparent from paragraph 8 of the judgment rendered in W.P.No.

286/1995, which is impugned herein, it is clear that even the State Government had accepted the stand that after the disposal of Writ Petition 2241/1994 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the Sheorinarayan Temple and Math, which is a writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 286/1995, was not given any opportunity of hearing to explain on the alleged complaints which the Registrar had allegedly received and there was no subsequent enquiry or investigation by the Registrar before the order impugned in Writ Petition 286/1995 was issued. Hence, the learned Single Judge was fully justified in holding that the order impugned before him was one passed in breach of the directions of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh through the order dated 28.06.1994 in Writ Petition 2241/94.

That being the position on facts and in law, the irresistible conclusion is that the appointment of the Administrator as per that order had to go. 5.

Through an interim order granted in Writ Petition 2241/1994 on 06.02.1995, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had ordered status quo pending final decision of

the writ petition, from which this appeal arises. That order of status quo enabled the then existing Office bearers to continue in office and the appointment of the Administrator was put at naught. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the effect of the interim order will continue to operate and the trustees of Sheorinarayan Temple and Math shall continue to abide by the provisions of the Public Trust Act without fail. 6.

For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment at the instance of the intervener, which was also heard by the learned Single Judge. This writ appeal, hence, fails. 7.

In the result, this appeal is dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/- (Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan) (Sanjay Agrawal) Chief Justice Judge