Supreme Court: Exhaust Statutory Remedies Before Writ Petition

SETH CHAND RATAN Versus PANDIT DURGA PRASAD (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

SETH CHAND RATAN Versus PANDIT DURGA PRASAD (D) BY LRS. & ORS. - 2003 AIR 2736, 2003 (3) SCR 75, 2003 (5) SCC 399, 2003 (3) JT 346 Issues Involved:
1. Ownership and management of Shri Madan Mohan Mandir and associated properties.
2. Legitimacy of the registration of Maheshwari Panchayati Mandir as a public trust.
3. Jurisdiction and authority of the Registrar in correcting the trust records.
4. Validity of the orders passed by the Registrar and the First Additional District Judge.
5. Maintainability of the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership and Management of Shri Madan Mohan Mandir and Associated Properties:
The primary dispute revolves around whether Shri Madan Mohan Mandir and its associated properties are owned and managed by a public trust (Maheshwari Panchayati Mandir) or are private properties belonging to the family of Pandit Durga Prasad. The appellant claims the temple and shops are managed by Maheshwari Panchayati Mandir, a public trust, while Pandit Durga Prasad asserts they are his family's private properties.

2. Legitimacy of the Registration of Maheshwari Panchayati Mandir as a Public Trust:
Pandit Kamta Prasad initially applied for the registration of Shri Madan Mohan Mandir as a public trust under the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951, but later withdrew the application, claiming the temple was privately managed by his family. Despite this, Maheshwari Panchayati Mandir was registered as a public trust, including Shri Madan Mohan Mandir, based on another application by Seth Champalal Sheonarayanji Rathi. The Registrar's order on 7.2.1955 for registration of Maheshwari Panchayati Mandir as a public trust became final and conclusive as per Section 7(2) of the Act.

3. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Registrar in Correcting the Trust Records:
Pandit Kamta Prasad's subsequent application for correcting the records to reflect the temple as a private trust was allowed by the Registrar on 31.12.1956. The appellant argues that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to entertain this correction application, making the order illegal and a nullity in law. The court held that the only remedy for Pandit Kamta Prasad was to file a civil suit under Section 8 of the Act, rather than seeking correction from the Registrar.

4. Validity of the Orders Passed by the Registrar and the First Additional District Judge:
The Registrar's order on 31.12.1983 directed Pandit Durga Prasad to seek appropriate directions from the Court regarding the trust property. Upon his failure, the Registrar referred the matter to the Court, which was decided by the First Additional District Judge on 28.3.1985. The Judge held that the Registrar's order of 31.12.1956 was not in accordance with law and directed the management of Shri Madan Mohan Mandir to be handed over to the trustees of Maheshwari Panchayati Mandir. This order was deemed a decree under Section 27(3) of the Act, against which an appeal lies to the High Court. The appeal filed by Pandit Durga Prasad was dismissed, making the Judge's order final and binding.

5. Maintainability of the Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution:
The High Court entertained a writ petition filed by Pandit Durga Prasad challenging the orders of the Registrar and the First Additional District Judge. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal was available and had already been exhausted by the petitioner. The principle of exhaustion of statutory remedies dictates that when a statute provides a specific remedy, it must be pursued before seeking discretionary remedies under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court committed a manifest error in entertaining the writ petition and set aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. The court allowed the appeal, reinstating the order of the First Additional District Judge. However, it permitted the contesting respondents to file a civil suit within three months to establish their rights under Section 8 of the Act. The appellants were awarded costs.