Janak Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ

The petitioner has filed this petition before this Court ostensibly on the ground that on 24.06.1998, a trust-deed was created by Shri Swami Vishnu

Dev Sandhu Udasin according to the rites, rituals and customs of Udasin Akhara. The object of this trust was to promote Sanatan Dharmand to serve

the poor. However, after the demise of Swami Vishnu Dev Sandhu, Swami Kamla Devi (respondent no. 7) inherited the possession of Vishnu Dham

Trust, Sapt Sarovar Road, Bhupatwala, Tehsil Haridwar, District Haridwar. Furthermore, according to the petitioner, respondent no. 7 constituted a

new trust deed in the garb of revised trust-deed, and removed all the old trustees of the original trust. The said revised trust-deed was created on

05.07.2013. Thereafter, in order to alienate the properties belonging to the trust, respondent no. 7 created a Will in favour of Ritu Rani @ Ritu Sekhri

(respondent no. 8) who happens to be the niece of respondent no. 7. The petitioner further claims that a forged Will dated 20.07.2019 was created.

Moreover by alienating the properties belonging to the trust, respondent no. 7 has committed the offences of both cheating, and criminal breach of

trust. But despite the fact that the petitioner has been consistently bringing the misdeeds of respondent nos. 7 & 8 to the notice of the Chief Secretary,

the respondent no. 1, no action has been taken against respondent nos.7 & 8 either by the Chief Secretary, the respondent no. 1, or by the

Administrator General, the respondent no. 3. Hence, the present PIL before this Court.

Mr. Vivek Shukla, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the mismanagement of the trust is the tip of the iceberg, as many Ashrams

and trusts existing and functioning in Haridwar are prone to sell the properties of the Ashrams and trusts in an illegal manner. Moreover, even Section

92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which permits a person to file a suit dealing with public charitable trust is not being followed in Haridwar.

Therefore, learned counsel submits that the present petition should be treated as a PIL, and notice should be issued.

However, for the reasons stated hereinunder, this Court is not convinced by the pleas raised by the learned counsel:

Firstly, according to the petitioner himself a “forged Will†had been created, which is the Will dated 20.07.2019. However, whether the Will is

genuine one, or forged one is a highly disputed question of fact. Such a disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated by this Court under the writ

jurisdiction.

Secondly, a vague statement is being made that Ashrams and trusts in Haridwar are alienating their properties in an illegal manner. But such a

statement is not buttressed by any cogent and convincing evidence. Therefore, such a vague statement cannot be accepted by this Court.

Thirdly, in case the petitioner is concerned with the functioning of the trust, he has ample legal remedies against respondent nos. 7 & 8. Since

alternative remedies do exist, this Court refrains from invoking its writ jurisdiction.

For the reasons stated, this Court does not find any merit in the present PIL. It is hereby dismissed.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of as infructuous.