IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 351 of 2007 Date of decision: 14.05.2009 Dhuna Sahib Udasin Acharya Jagat Guru …. Petitioners Sh. Chander Bhagwan and another. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. R.M. Bisht and Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate Generals, for the respondents. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral): This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.2.2007, passed by the Collector, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby the management of Dhuna Baba Ghati Sahib has been taken over and vested in the Management Committee consisting of 22 persons appointed by the Collector. We need not give the detailed facts of the case since the issue involved before us is only a legal one as to whether the Collector had any legal authority to pass such an order or not. There is no dispute that the Dhuna Baba Ghati Sahib of the Udasin sect was established in the year 1918. According to the State, there is a civil suit pending in 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 the Civil Court between Mahant Gopal Dass and Mahant Jagat Dass regarding the affairs of the Dhuna. This dispute admittedly is pending in the Civil Court. By interim order passed by the Civil Court, the parties have been directed to maintain status quo qua the nature and possession of the property. The Collector on the report of the S.D.O.(Civil), Dehra and Tehsildar Jaswan, came to the conclusion that in view of the dispute in between the aforesaid two Mahants and consequent improper management of the day-to-day affairs, it was necessary to appoint fresh Management Committee in the public interest. We have asked the learned Advocate General as to under which provisions of law, the Collector could exercise such powers. No such provision has been shown to us which authorizes the Collector of a District to interfere in such a matter and appoint a Management Committee. The law with regard to the charities is well settled. In case of a private charity, the Government has no authority to take any action. In case of public charities, Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable and the Advocate General of the State is entitled to file a suit, in case any public charity is not being properly managed. Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure also provides that two persons having interest in the Trust can also institute a suit in this regard. The Deputy Commissioner or the S.D.O.(Civil) do not have any authority to pass an order like the one which has been passed in this case. In case of any law and order problem, the Magistrate is vested with certain powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure. But as far as the management is concerned, even assuming for the sake of argument, without expressing any view on the merit of the case that the Dhuna in question is a pubic charity, then also the Collector could only have filed 3 a suit through the learned Advocate General in the Civil Court but could not have himself passed any order like the one under challenge. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner without having any authority or legal right to pass the same. Therefore, the order being without any jurisdiction is quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. CMP No. 615 of 2007: In view of the orders passed in the main petition, the stay order dated 26.3.2007 stands vacated and the application also stands disposed of. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge ( V.K. Ahuja ), May 14, 2009 Judge (BSS) 4