t7 HLGH^QURTOFJUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR A SINGLE BENCH: Hon'bte ShrfS.R. Nayak, CJ Writ Petition N0.31ZOF 20Q6 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, Branch Chhattisgarh through State secretary Vasudev singh Thakur, S/o M.S. Thakur aged about 57 years. R/o Tiranga Chowk, Kushalpur, Raipur (C.G.) Vereus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Public Trust, Religious Department (Ddharmik Nyas Evam Dharmasya Vibhag), Raipur 2. The Collector, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Registrar Public Trust, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Shri "Dudhadhari Math" Through the Sarvarakar, Raipur (C.G.) Present: Shri S.C. Verma, leamed counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh, learned Govt. Advocats for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 6'" February, 2006) The petitioner is the branch of Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha in Chhattisgarh State. It is stated that it is a registered Society under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the petitioner is working and fighting for the welfare of the Hindu Community. In this writ petition, it is alleged that Sarvarakar of the 4th respondent-Math, against the interest of the Math, has been carrying on the aflairs of tte Math in objectionable way and his continuance as Sarvarakar of the 4th respondent-Math would not be conducive in the infsrest of the Math. —a- \ Particularly, it is alleged that the Sarvarakar of the 4 respondent -Math indiscriminately has been alienating anel disposing ofthe Math properties. In the premise of the above allegations, the petitioner has sought for the fotlowing reliefe: (i) That this Hon'bte Court may be kind enough to make an enquiry in this whole matter to ascertain the fact whether the sale of land and property of "Dudhadhari Math" was correct and needed. (ii) That this Hon'bte Court may be kindenough in calling the entire records of the respondent No. 4 institution and records from the respondents 1 ,2 and 3 regarding the total lands and properties of respondent No.4 "Dudhadhari MaW to ascertain the fact that how much property was inifially in the name of respondent No. 4 and now how much is remain. If these records will be placed before this Hon'bte Court the whole matter will be clear like a crystal. (iii) That this Hon'ble Court may kind enough to dissolve the respondent No. 4 Trust and any high power committed may be given charge of ttiis Trust to run the Trust only in accordance with law. (h/) That this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to protect the interest of respondent No. 4 institution. (2) Heard Mr. S.C. Verma, leamed counsel for the petitioner and perused the material papers appended to the petitk»n. It was contended by Shri Verma that having noticed the illegal activities of the Sarvarakar of 4 respondent-Math, particularly, his actioruof indiscriminately alienating very valuable Math's properties, the petitioner made several representations to the Registrar Public Trust, the 3 respondent, as well as to the Collector, Raipur, the 2 respondent, but, they have not taken any action on those representations. In that view of the matter, ~'3- )\ intervention of the Court is necessary to safeguard and protect the interest of age old 4 respondent-Math . » (3) The petitioner at page 13 of the material papers has enclosed a copy of the representation dated 22-05-2004 submitted to the 2 respondent Collector, Raipur District. It is true that in the said representation, the petitioner has gh/en certain details of alienation of the 4 respondent-Math's property in favour of the 3rd parties. When the Court pointedly asked Mr. Verma to potnt out legat obligation of the Collector to consider the representation of the petitioner datsd 22-05- 2004, learned counsel would refer me to Section 26 of the C.G. Public Trust Act, 1951 (for short the "Act") andaccordingto Shri Verma, the representation dated 22-05-2004 should be regarded as an application made by the petitioner under SecUon 26 of the Act and, therefore, the Collector being the Registrar of the Public Trust is duty-bound to consider the same and take correctlve measures. (4) Having heard leamed counsel for the parties for considerable time, 1 am of the opinion that the petitioner has no kxus- standi to maintain that application dated 22-05-2004. The petitioner has no locus-stand! to maintain the applicatton under sub-Section (1) of Section 26 of the Act before the Registrar, because, he cannot be regarded as person interested in the 4 respondent-Math. 1 have carefutly pemsed the entire averments made in the writ petition. Not a word is said in thewrit petition on the basis ofwhich I can possibly form an opinion that the petitioner is an interested person in the 4 respondent-Math. It is not even stated that all or some of the members of the petitioner society are '.T^: -4- devotees or disciples of the 4th respondent-Math. It needs to be noticed that in order to qualify to be a 'person interested', the interest to be shown should be a special interest which is different from the common interest of all others. tn that vlew of the matter, representatlon of the petitioner dated 22-05-2004 should be regarded as an extra-legal in nature and that representation would not oblige the Collector or the Registrar to consider the same as a matter of obligation in terms of the Act and take appropriate corrective measures. That does not mean that the Registrar cannot take action as contemplated under sub-Section (1) of Section 26 of the Act on the basis of the representation made by the petitioner. That is very much within the discretion of the Registrar, but, the petitioner has no legal right to obtige the Reglstrar to take action against the Sarvarakar of the 4 respondent-Math on the basis of his representation. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _^^. Sd/- TheChiefJustice .1 ^. K^wie i