The Sub-Divisional Officer acted beyond jurisdiction under the Chhattisgarh Public Trusts Act, 1951.

ORDER :

Arvind Kumar Verma, J.

Heard.

1. The petitioners have been filed this writ petition on the following relief(s) :

“10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned order dated 03/07/2025 (Annexure P/1), passed by the Respondent No. 2 as being without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice, and contrary to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Public Trusts Act, 1951.

10.2 That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be granted in favor of the petitioner safeguarding their interest.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Petitioners, being office bearers and lawful members of the Shri Maa Bamleshwari Mandir Trust Samiti, Dongargarh - a public trust registered under the Chhattisgarh Public Trusts Act (registration No.2/1976) have approached this Court seeking intervention against an arbitrary, unauthorized, and hasty interference by Respondent No. 2 (Sub- Divisional Officer) in the internal affairs of the Trust. The Petitioners, in a properly convened general meeting held on 29.05.2025, passed a resolution removing Respondents No. 3 and 4 from the Trust's membership. The meeting complied with all constitutional and procedural mandates. However, without jurisdiction, Respondent No. 2 entertained and allowed an application filed by Respondents No. 3 and 4 under Sections 26 and 27 of the Act, and set aside the said resolution just before the finalization of the electoral roll. The impugned order not only violates the autonomy of the Trust, but also reflects bias, procedural impropriety, and abuse of process, especially when jurisdictional challenges were raised and a transfer petition was pending. The present writ petition has thus been filed challenging the order dated 03/07/2025 for redressal of these grievances and restoration of lawful trust functioning.

3. Learned State counsel fairly admitted that under Section 26 of the Chhattisgarh Public Trusts Act, 1951 , Sub-Registrar has power only to direct after giving the working trustee and opportunity to be heard direct such trustee to apply to Court for directions within the time specified by the Registrar. Further, he contended that under Section 27 of the Chhattisgarh Public Trusts Act, 1951 the power vested on Civil Court.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the parties and further considering the provisions of Sections 26 & 27 of the Chhattisgarh Public Trusts Act, 1951 which is provides as under :-

“26. Application to Court for directions.- (1) If the Registrar on the application of any person interested in the public trust or otherwise is satisfied that-

(a) the original object of the public trust has failed;

(b) the trust property is not being properly managed or administered;

or (c) the direction of the Court is necessary for the administ the public trust;

he may, after giving the working trustee an opportunity to be heard direct such trustee to apply to Court for directions within the time specified by the Registrar.

(2) If the trustee so directed fails to make an application as required. or if there is no trustee of the public trust or if for any other reason, the Registrar considers it expedient to do so, he shall himself make an application to the Court.”

27. Court's power to hear application. - (1) On receipt of such application the Court shall make or cause to be made such inquiry into the case as it deems fit and pass such orders thereon as it may consider appropriate.

(2) While exercising