HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petiticn (227) No.2003i20w PETITIONE Anjay Shukla, Son of iate Shri v.8. Shukia, aged 49 years; R/o Civil Lines, Raipur, Trusty- Shri Mahakaii Mandir Trust, Akashwani Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS ’i The ‘State 0f Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Dharmasva/Publlc Trust DKS Bhawan Raipur(C G) 2 The Registrar, Pubiic Trust, Raipur, Coiiectorate Campus, Raipur (C.G.) 3 The Maa Mahakaii Mandir Trust, CiViI Line Raipur (C.G.) through: its President WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance ' Mr SC Verma Counseiforthe petitioner Mr AS Kachhwaha Dy Advocate Generai for respondents 1 & 2 on advance copy ORAL ORDER (29.04.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA', J. Heard on admission. Petitioner— Anjay Shukia has filed this petition making various aiiegations and highiighting irregularities in the functioning of Maa ‘Mahakali Mandir Trust, Civil Lines, Raipur (respondent No.3) and has prayed for a direction to hoid an enquiry regarding the said allegations. Mr. 8.0. Vermaf learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of illegai functioning of the office bearers of the Trust, the whole object of the Public Trust is R \ Writ Petition 1227i No.2003i2010 o being frustrated and the Trust property is being mismanaged by the office bearers. Mr. A.S. Kachhwaha, iearned Dy. Advocate General for the Stem/respondents 1 & 2, takes an oral objection that in View of the provisions of Section 26 of the C.G. Pubtic trusts Act, 1951 , this v/vrit petition wouid not be maintainabie, as the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of filing an application before the Registrar concerned. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the provisions of Section 26 of the Public Trusts Act, 1951 and the allegations made in the writ petition by the petitioner, who is one of the trustees, l am of the opinion that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appiication under Section 26 of the Public Trusts Act, 1951 and in view of the said remedy, the writ petition would not be maintainable. For the foregoing reasons, l am not inciined to admit this petition for further hearing. The Writ Petition is dismissed summarily However, the petitioner Woutd be at liberty to file an appropriate appiication before the r Registrar Concerned under Section 26 of the Public Trusts Act, 1951 raising all his grievances, including the grievance projected in the writ petition. Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge No order as to cost(s). \ Sd/-