.^ ^&^ ^s^^ ^ ^p'" ->,'-<*.' i^yv3" ^^ -# y'v" 1. .•••'" '.^••" © ?in S s SFNCM ^ IN THE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU^ WPCONo.'2,^ / 2010 PETITIONER : / A. Chandrashekhar, S/o Late Shri A.P.Dora Aged about 41 years, R/o QuarterNo. 1B/121 S.B.S. Colony, S.E.C.L, Korba (CG.), President ofSECL Boys Club. Versus RESPONDENTS ? 1. The State ofChhattisgarh, through Secretary Sports and youth welfare department, D.K.S Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG.). / 2. The Registrar, Firms and Societies, Chhattisgarh, 0-5, Anupam Nagar, Raipur, (CG-). / 3. Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies, Bilaspur Division,Jarhabha'ta,VikrantBhawan,Bilaspur(CG) 4. The District Sports OfBcer, Sports and Youfh i-""5 !'?**"";. Welfare Department, OfBce of Superintendent ofPolice, Korba, District - Korba (CG.) 5. Chhattisgarh Football Association, through its Honorary Secretary, Dr. G.D. Gandhi, R/o-BKD-5, Sector- 09, Bhilai Township, District- Durg (CG.). 6. Korba District Football Association, through its President, Jai Sing Agarwal, Durpa Marg, Korba, Distdct - Korba (CG.). , 7. Naseem Akhtar Khan, R/o - Quarter No. 33, Sec-7, Balco Township, District - Korba (CG.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTFTUTION OF BSDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER:- As gTven above in the cause title. /' "::-' V/ vs-y. / l:fr../"'y ^IV :|1| ^Si^ijtlj^^-SS^^ ItlNiT—i—i.iaSi,.,- - •i\ AF^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 3786 of 20^10 PETITIONER : A. Chandrashekhar VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTLCLE226_OF THECON_STITUTLONOF I^NDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. A&nihotri, J. Present: Shri R.S. Baghel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 28th day ofAugust, 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner on the basis of alleged irregularities purported to have been committed by the Secretary of the respondent No.6 association, seeks a direction to the respondent No.2 & 3 to exercise the powers under Section 33 of the Chhattisgarh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short "the Adhiniyam, 1973") and supersede the respondent No.6 and to take the management of respondent No.6 in its hands. Further, a writ of mandamus to the respondent No.2 & 3 to stop respondent No.7 from working as Secretary to the respondent No.6 association. 3. Be that as it may, on a special query whether any application has been made either to the State Government or to the Registrar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a representation has been made to the Deputy Registrar, Societies and Firms, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, on 29/07/2010 (Annexure D) seeking an action against one Shri N.A. Khan to stop his illegal activities and to remove him for violation of law as well as the resolution dated 26/03/2009. 4, The petitioner is seeking a direction to comply with the statutory provisions contaihed under the provisions of Section 33 oftheAdhiniyam, 1973. Section 33 oftheAdhiniyam, 1973 begins with the words "If, in the opinion of the State -. Government". Thus, the State Government has to form its 1-1n,,,. ^ opinion on the basis of certain documents or application made by the competent people to make the application. 5. . It is a case where the petitioner has not attempted to approach the State Government or the Registrar for exercise of its power under the provision of Section 33 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 had rather chosen to approach this Court directly under Article 226.af the Constitution of India seeking a direction against the State respondent to act under the provisions of Section 33 oftheAdhiniyam, 1973. 6. This is a very unusual case, where it appears that the petitioner has by-passed all the statutory provisions and seeking a direction, which may not be granted when there is no application to the Registrar of Societies or the State Governmgnt, as the case may be, and, as such, the State Government has no opportunity to.form its opinion to take action under the provisions of Section 33 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 against the respondent No. 5 & 7. 7. It is a trite law that a petitioner seeking writ of mandamus must have a judicially enforceable legal right, which has been infringed. 8. The Supreme Court in Mani Subrat Jain and others vs. State ofHaryana and others , held as under :- "9. The High Court rightly dismissed the petitions. It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected n'ght before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by some one who has a legaldutyto dosomethingor to abstain from doing something (See Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Ed. Vol. I, paragraph 122; State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha & Ors. Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors. and Ferris Extraordinary Legal Remedies paragraph 198." 1977 (l)SCC 486 .. .-_-_..-iA's-'M^- b 9. Gov'/ri 10. 11 12. In Dr. Umakant Saran vs. State of Bihar and others . the Supreme Court observed as under :- "10. This Court has pointed out in Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v, The Governing Body of the Nalanda College, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party have a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. xxx xxx xxx" The petitioner has not established any legally enforceable right to seek the aforestated writ of mandamus or any other writ. The letter dated 29/07/2010 addressed to the Deputy Registrar, Societies and Firms, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, does not seek exercise of powers under the provisions of Section 33 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 and, as such, it cannot be said that the petitioner has made an' application to the Registrar or the State Government, as the case may be. Thus, this petition is frivolous, without any basis and is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make appropriate application to the Registrar of Societies or the State Government, as the case may be, seeking exercise of power under Section 33 of the Adhiniyam, 1973, ifso advised. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge 1973 (l)SCC 485 ,