IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5539 of 2010 Date of decision: 30.03.2011 Madho Dass & Ors. …. Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others ... Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel and Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral): The petitioners have filed the present petition claiming the following reliefs:- (a) This Hon’ble Court may kindly issue a writ of Mandamus to Respondent 1 and 2 with regard to administration of the affairs of respondent number 3 directing them to ensure that the administration of the affairs of respondent number 3 is transparent and accountable also. The petitioners pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to order Respondents 1 and 2 to constitute committee 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 for management of affairs of respondent number 3 and that the Committee to be constituted for managing the affairs of Sh. Dhuna Sahib respondent number 3 can compromise of members already part of the committee constituted by respondent number 3 dated or such persons as this Hon’ble Court deems fit. (b) Direct the respondent State by way of issuance of writ of Mandamus to hold an inquiry into the management of the affairs of respondent number 3 and take appropriate action against persons found guilty of misappropriation of the funds of respondent number 3.” 2. Insofar as relief (a) is concerned, it has been pointed out by learned counsel for respondent No 3 supported by the reply and a copy of the judgment dated 14.5.2009 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, in which it was clearly held that the Deputy Commissioner/Collector had no authority to appoint a committee to look into the affairs of the private charity and accordingly, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector was held to be illegal without jurisdiction and was set aside. 3. Similar prayer is being made by the petitioners, but in view of the order passed by the Division Bench in the matter pertaining to Dhuna Sahib respondent No. 3, no direction can be issued by this Court and that prayer is declined. 4. Insofar as relief (b) that a writ of mandamus may be issued to hold an inquiry into the management of the affairs of respondent No. 3 is concerned, I am of the opinion that no direction can be issued in the case of a private charity or the property held by Dhuna Sahib and as such, the said relief cannot be granted in 3 favour of the petitioner, as prayed by them. I have also been informed that a civil dispute with respect to Dhuna Sahib is also pending in Civil Court at Dehra. There is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioners, which is dismissed accordingly, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. However, the parties may seek appropriate remedy available to them in accordance with law. ( V.K. Ahuja ), March 30, 2011 Judge (BSS) 4