HIGH_CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition,(C)_No^ 4266 of 2009 Petitioner Shri Dattatraya Maiidir Trust, Ameenpara Ward (Bramliapuri), Raipur (C.G.) (A registered Trust, duly registered under Registi-ation No. 101/1958) through its Working Trustee, Maliaiit Haiidas T\ragi, S/o Shri Guru Anaiit Vibhusbit Maharshi Yogadhiraj Barfaiii Dadaji, aged about 47 years, R/o Raipura, Mahadeoghat, Raiplir (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. '^.. 4. &. State of .Chhattisgarh, Tbrough - fhe Secretaiy, Departiuent of ReUgious Trusts and Endowittents, Mailtralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bbawan, Raipur (CG). CoUector and ChairDian. of the Trust Coniiaittee, Shri Dattatrava Mandir Trust, Raipur (C.G.) Registrar Public Trust, Constitution under C.G. PubUc Tmst Act 1951, being Sub Divisioual Officer, Op'posite R.D.A. Buildiag, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Tarait Prakash Suiha, Sub Divisional Officer & Registrar Public Trust, Raipur (C.G.] Shri Chetan Dandawate, Secretary, Shri Dutta Maildir Trust Cominittee, Mahsmiaya Maiidir Wai-d, Raipw(C.G.j Shri. Yashwaat Rao Girepuiije, S/o Late Narayaji Girepunje, R/o Braialiapuri Dattatraya Maudir preniises, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDE.R ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Virendra Sliaraia, Advocate for the petitioaer. Shri Aruii Sao, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 3. O R DE R (OraO (Passed on this 11th day ofAugust, 2009) The petitioner has filed fhis petition, impugniag the order dated 25.7.2009 (-Annexure P/l), passed by fhe Sub Divisional Ofiicer aad Registrar PubUc Trust,- Raipur ia Case No. 01 B/ 113(4} year ^ ^^•i'.l fif,r^\ ^'.' '® L . '-Si 'sss& & 'ik.. '^'SSK-^'"S V 2. 4. 2008-09 (Yashwaat Rao Gu-punje & aiiother Vs. State of Chhattisgarh). Learued counsel appearing for the petitioner subniits fhat tlie petitioner Shri Dattatraya Maiidir Trust is a registered trust. On 19.8.2008 (Annexure P/2) tlie petitioner-Trust, fhrough its tinstee naniely Shii Yashwaitt Rao Girepunje/Respoiident No.6 filed aa, application under Section 9 (1) of '&ie CMiattisgarh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (for short 'Uie Act, 1951') in. prescribed format to fhe respondent No.3 for ciiaiige of the entries in trust register for change of names of soine of fhe trustees. The respondent No.2 after followiag fhe prescribed procedure passed the order on 12.1.2009 imder Section 9 (2) ofthe Act, 1951. This oi-der was conditional where naiaes of fhe ta-ustees were difected to be entered on fu.mishin.g five poiuts infoi'aiation/docuiaents vnttiia seven days, faifaig which fhe order was to be caacelled autoiriatically. The requisite conditions were fulfilled on 19.1.2009 an.d consequentiy the entries were inade in the register as per ttie order dated 12.1.2009. Thereafter, fhe respondent No.5 (Shii Chetan. Daiidawate), Secretaiy ofthe Trust, filed as. application on 2.7.2009 before fhe respondent No.3 for quashiag of fhe order dated 12.1.2009. By the impugned order dated 25.7.2009 (Annexure P/1) fhe respondeiit No.3 canceUed the order dated 12,1.2009, heace this Leained counsel appearuig for fhe peutiouer further subniits tliat Section 8 (1) of tiie Act, 1951 provides tliat aiiy workiag trustee or person haviiig iaterested ia a plibUc ti-ust or aiiy property found to be trust property, aggrieved by any findm.g of tlie <:^^3®"",.. '•Si-S'^SSte.- i: "•"SSigi j :. %>. tj '•^y' •a c; 6. Registrar inay institute a suit in. a Civil Court to have such fiiidiug set aside or inoditled. The respondent No.6 iastead of Lg a civil suit, beiag aggrieved by ttte order dated 12.1.2009, passed by the RegistraT, had filed an application/coraplauit on 2.7.2009. The respondent No.3, contraiy to fhe provisions of Section 8 oftheAct, 1951 entertaiaed the applicatioii/coiiiplaiat inade by the respondent No.6 and by the impugned order dated 25.7.2009 (Amiexure P/1) recalled the oixler dated 12.1.2009, which is not sustaiaable ia law. I have heard leamed couiisel appeai-iug for fhe parties aad perused the docuitteuts appended thereto. Section 8 of fhe Act, 1951 provides for filmg of civH siiit against auy of the findia.gs of fhe Registr-ar, Pubtic Trust. The Registrar, Public Trust has passed fhe order dated 25.7.2009 (Annexure P/'l) uuder the provisions ofSection 9 (2) ofthe Act, 1951. Sub- section (3) of Section 9 of the Act, 1951 provides fb.at "7?ze provisions ofsection 8 shall apply to anyfinding under this section as they apply to a findirtg under section 6. Thus, if a finding is recorded uiider flie provisions of Section 9 (1) & (2) of the Act, 1951, aa aggrieved party luay inove Qie civU Court agaiust. the fuidiiig of fhe Registrar, PubUc T'rust. Thus, fhe petitioner has alteniative statutoiy reniedy of chaUengiag tlie order of the Regisfa-ar, PubUc Trust, passed under Section 9 ofthe Act, 1951, in. civit suit. Haviag perused ttie relevaiit provisions of law, it is obvious tliat aii altemative effecti.ve 'statutory reinedy is available to the petitiouer under Section 8 of the Act, 1951.It is weU settled that norjiially fhe Migh Court sboilld aot iiiterfere if tliere is an 9. adequate, statutoiy, efficacious altemative reinedy is provided by fhe statute, party niust exliaust the statutor}7 reiaedy before resorting to writ jurisdiction. 8. A Coustitution Bench of the I-Ion'ble Supreiue Court ia K. S. Others1, observed ttiat "the nsniedy provided for in Article 226 of fh.e Constitution is a discretionary reiaedy and the High Court has alwa}rs the discretion to refuse to graat aay writ if it is satisfied fhat ffae aggrieved paity can. have an adequate or suitable reUef elsewhere." The said decision has been referred aad followed subsequently in a catena of decisions that if a relief cannot be graated by fhe appeUate aufhority, fhe writ jurisdiction inay be invoked. In the present set of facts, all 'Qie reUef sought for by the petitioner caa be granted by the civil Court. On fhe question of availabiUty of alteraati.ve reinedy, the Supreuie Court ia State of H.P. and others v. Gnjarat Ambaja Cement and auother2, observed as under: 17. We shall first deal "ivifh the plea regarding altemative reiaedy as raised by ftie appeUaut State. Except for a period when Article 226 was amended by the Constitution (Forty- second Aniendm.eat) Aet, 1976, fhe power relatuig to altemative reiaedy has been considered to be a rule of setf- icaposed limitatinn. It is essentially a rule of poUcy, convenience and discretion aad never a rule of law. Despite the existence of aii altemative reniedy, it is wifhia. tae juiisdiction of discretion of fh.e High Court to gTant relief uiider Article 226 of the Constitution. At fhe saine tuae, it caiiaot be lost sight of that fhough fhe niatter relatmg to an ' AIR 1954 SC 207 2 (2005) 6 SCC 499 altemative reinedy has nofhiag to do wifli the jurisdiction of the case, normally fhe Higll Court should not uiterfere ifthere is an adequate eiEcacious altemative reinedy. If soinebody approaches the rligh Court witliout availrag the alteruative reniedy provided the High Court should ensiire fhat he has m.ade out a strong case or that there exist good grounds to iiivoke the extraordinary jiirisdiction. 10. Furfh.er, apphiag ttie said ratio in U.P. State Spianing Co. Ltd. vs. R.S.Paadey and another3, fhe Court observed as uiider: "21. In U.P. State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S. Kaniiachari Saiigh, it was held tliat when fhe dispute relates to enforcenient of a right or obUgatiou uiider fhe statute aud speci&c reinedy is, fh.erefore, provided under fhe statute, fbe High Court should not deviate froni fhe general view and iaterfere under Article 226 except when a veiy strong case is raade out for makuig a departiire. The person who iasists upon such reiaedy caa avail of fhe process as provided under fhe statute. To fhe same effect are the decisions in Preiaier Autoiaobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shaiitaram. Vi''adke, Rajasthau SRTC v. Krishna Kaiit, Chaadrakaut Tukaram Nikaiu v. Muaicipal Corpn. of Ahniedabad aiid ia Scooters India v. Vijai E.V.Eldred." 11. This Coui-t in Writ Petition (C) No. 2164 of 2008 (Shivratan Agariya & aaother Vs. State of Chhattisgar & others) iu para 6 and 7 observed as luider: "6. This Court ia M/s Thobhaai Auto Mobiles vs. State of CtLhattisgarh and Ofhers, ^vtule dealirtg \vith tlie issue of altem.ative reiuedy observed fhat "normally ttie High Court should not interfere if fhere is aa adequate, ef&cacious alteraative reiuedy where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, psrty niust exhaust fhe stetutory reHiedy before -' C2005) 8 SCC 264 h- ? resortmg to writ jurisdiction, except when a very strong case is m.ade oiit for maMag a departure. 7. Applying the well-settled dicta laid doivu by ftie Mon'ble Supreine Court as weU as this Court on tiie issue of availabitity of alteniative i^inedy to the facts of the case, fhis petition is disinissed as not inaintaiiiable, as no strong case has been m.ade out for exercise of extraordiiiary discretioaarv- jurisdiction iu favour of fhe petitioners. However, liberty is resenred to fhe petitioners to take recourse to the alteiTiative statiitoiy forum fhat inay be avaiiable to theni under tlie pro'kdsions of law. Consequently, ititeriBl order passed earUer staiids vacated." r^. Tliakur In view of fhe foi^going, fhe petition is disinissed as not iciamtainable. However, liberty is reserved to fhe petitioner to avail fb.e alteraative statutor}r reinedy, ia accordance witb law, if so advised. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge