I. 38 1 } 1 § k 1 i I i I { I 1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CH ATTISGARH : BILASPUR ! ! Single Bench: Hpn’ble Shri S.$. Nayak, CJ wm Petitian No.5635‘ OF 2005 S/o Jhadu Ram Yadav \ Aged abéut 43 years, R/o Yadav ‘ Moh’alia P.O. & Vill2’Chandrapur, ' Tahsil Dabhara, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) PETITIONER Rani Prasad Yadav, ! : i I ‘ r S i g I i i Versus RESPONDENTS ' , 1. State ofChhattisgarh i Through : Chief Secretary / i Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, l i Raipur (C.G.) I 2. The Collector & Registrar of Public J Trusi$ Janjgir Champa (C.G.)A i 3_ J Sue-Divisional Magistrate & i i i i i i i i Registrar Public Trustee Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) i 4. ShriiGopaiji Mahaprabhu Avam Chandrahasini Devi Mandir Sarv’ajanik Nyas Chandrapur, Tahsil Dabhara District Janjgir Cham'pa (c.G.), Through : its Managing Trustee Present: Mr.M.L. PastoreJeamed counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. i i i 7 i x t i v i i ORAL ORDER (Passed on 5i“ of December 2005) Although in this writ petition the petitioner has assailed his; i i i i i removal from the Board of Trustees of the fourth respondent, namely. Shri i Gopalji Mahaprabhu Avam Chandrahasini Devi Mandir Sarvajanik Nyas; éhandrapur, Tahsii Dabhara, District Janjgir Chamoa, at the tiine at t hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would restrict the relief toL /. . issuance of a direction to the secondfrespondent to consider and dispose i i of the application tiled by the pgtitioner on 12909-2005 against the action 01f the fourth 'responcient in removing the petitioner as Trustee of the Board ogfvii’rustees It Is stated that the fourth respondent has arbitraniy and Without notice has removed the petitioner from the Board of Trustees on ‘11-06-2005 and being aggrieved by the said action the petitioner i lubmitted Registrar an of appiication Public Trusts to the Janjgir second Champa respondent and the namely, second the respondent Collector I hot yet disposed of that application h l ' ‘ r E (2) In that View of the, matter, lrdispose of this writ petition l l lirecting the second respondent to dispose of the application dated 12-09- 05 fled under Sections 26 and 27 of the M P Public Trust Act after ' 2 , 1 i notice to the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent and after gtvmg l ' t an opportunity of being heard. There is no order as to costst h Sd/— Rx Chief Justice > ’ ‘ t i i i i Ii i i ‘