The main legal point established in the judgment is that a writ petition involving serious disputed questions of fact, which cannot be resolved by the High Court, is liable to be dismissed. Additionally, the court clarified that the office of Mahant is not a 'public office', dismissing the petitioners' prayer for issuance of a writ of quo-warranto.

[Per: Hon'ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. (Oral)]

Mr. RK. Raizada, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for respondents Nos. 1 to 3.

Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondent No.4 Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Advocate for respondent No.5.

They are heard.

2. Petitioners Maharaj Chatendev Abdhoot JiAshram Association and Sri Bihari D. Chhabria have filed this writ petition for the following reliefs:

"(A) Issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of appropriate writ holding the entire proceedings before the Respondent No.4 in respect of mutation of the name of Respondent No.5 in place of name of Chetan Dev Kutia, having the import of conveying the impression of ownership of Respondent No.5 in any manner or for any purpose what-so-ever, as null and void and writ of certiorari quashing the entire proceedings before the Respondent No.4 in respect of mutation of the name of Respondent No.5 and/or.

(B) Issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus commanding the Respondent No.4 and 2 to record the name of the Public Trust i.e. Maharaj Chetan Dev Avadhut Ji Ashram Association in the municipal records;

(C) Issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of writ of Quo Warranto removing the Respondent No. 5 from the office of Mahant of Chetan Dev Kutia and/or

(D) Issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 1,2 and 3 to ensure handing over the possession of the trust property by the Respondent No.5 to the Board of Trustees of the Association or the Mahant to be appointed by the Board of Trustees and/or

(E) Issue an order, direction commanding the Respondent No. 5 to furnish the account to the Board of Trustees of Petitioner No.1 and/or

(F) Issue an interim order or direction during the pendency of the writ petition, restraining the Respondent No. 5 from dealing in any manner with the trust property i.e. Chetan Dev Kutia and commanding the Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 to ensure handing over the possession of the trust property by the Respondent No. 5, to the Board of Trustees of the petitioner No. 01 or to some responsible person to be appointed as administrator of the trust property, under the supervision and administration of the Petitioner Association and/or

(G) Issue an order or direction or writ as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case."

3. From the writ petition, it is apparent that the writ petition has been filed under Section 7 of The Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') read with Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The matter relates to the management of the affairs of the Trust "Maharaj Chatendev Abdhoot Ji Ashram Association, Kankhal, District Haridwar".

4. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, the learned counsel for respondent No. 5 has raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition on the following grounds:

(i) The petition under Section 7 of the Act is required to be filed before the court of District Judge and the petition before the High Court is not maintainable, as the High Court of Uttarakhand does not have ordinary original civil jurisdiction;

(ii) The writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India involves serious disputed questions of fact, which cannot be resolved in a writ petition;

(iii) The prayer for issuance of a writ of quo-warranto is a misconceived one, as the office of Mahant of an Ashram is not a 'public office'; and (iv) For the other reliefs, such as furnishing of the account etc., the petitioners have alternative statutory remedy and can also file a civil suit for these reliefs.

5.1 The petitioners' case is that initially the property in question was purchased by Maharaj Chatendev Abdhoot Ji vide a registered sale deed in the year 1887. Maharaj Chatendev. Abdhoot Ji, in his life time, executed a Will, wherein arrangement was made for the management of the property after his death. In