The main legal point established is that the appropriate remedy for the appointment of non-hereditary trustees from a specific community is through provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, and not through a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Headnote:
Article 226 - Appointment of Non-Hereditary Trustees - The court held that the appropriate remedy for the appointment of non-hereditary trustees from the Vysya community of Marwadis of Adilabad is through provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure or any other provision pertaining to the Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, and not through a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:

A writ petition was filed before the High Court for the appointment of non-hereditary trustees from the Vysya community of Marwadis of Adilabad.
Finding of the Court:

The Division Bench held that the appropriate remedy is through provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure or any other provision pertaining to the Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, and not through a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issues: The issue was whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was the appropriate remedy for the appointment of non-hereditary trustees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation that the appropriate remedy for the appointment of non-hereditary trustees is through specific provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the view that the appropriate remedy for the appointment of non-hereditary trustees is through specific provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987.

ORDER

CA No. 5358 of 1997

1. In a writ petition filed before the High Court for a direction that the Deputy Commissioner should appoint non-hereditary trustees from the Vysya community of Marwadis of Adilabad, a learned Single Judge of the High Court granted the said relief .. On appeal, the Division Bench held the view that the appropriate remedy to be availed of is by recourse to provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure or any other provision pertaining to the Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and not a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and on that basis dismissed the writ petition by allowing the appeal. We think the view taken by the High Court is perfectly correct and calls for no interference. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

CA No. 5357 of 1997

2. The appear is disposed of in terms of the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 5358 of 1997.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 243

Supreme Court Of IndiaS. RAJENDRA BABU AND DRAR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ RAJASTHANI PRAGATHI SAMAJ, DILABAD Appellant; Versus RAMESH KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS ..Respondents. Civil Appeals No. 5358 of 1997 with No. 5357 of 1997Decided on February 27, 2003

Supreme Court Of India
S. RAJENDRA BABU AND DRAR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ
RAJASTHANI PRAGATHI SAMAJ,
DILABAD Appellant;
Versus
RAMESH KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS ..Respondents.
Civil Appeals No. 5358 of 1997 with No. 5357 of 1997
Decided on February 27, 2003