Ragini Bhatt and Another vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

B.S. Verma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

By means of this writ petition, the Petitioners have sought the following relief:

I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 that they may ensure that only the Petitioners'' society may run the institution and they may also restrain the Respondent No. 5 in any manner to intervene in the affairs of the institution namely Sri Hari Krishna Samiti Junior High School Bhatkoti, District Tehri Garhwal.

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that they may also ensure that they may not act upon any bills presented by the Respondent No. 5 in respect of the institution namely Sri Hari Krishna Samiti Junior High School Bhatkoti, District Tehri Garhwal.

III. Issue any suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case.

IV. Award the cost of the petition to the Petitioners.

According to the Petitioners, there is an institution namely Sri Hari Krishna Smriti Bal Vidyalaya, which is being run by the validly constituted committee of management and the society registered in the name and style of Sri Hari Krishna Smriti Bal Vidyalaya Sanchalan Samiti. The committee is having its own byelaws duly approved and registered in the office of the Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits Dehradun. It is alleged by the Petitioners that the entire construction of the building of the institution was done by the husband of Smt. Ragini Bhatt the Petitioner No. 1 with the assistance of his brothers under an agreement executed in favour of one Mr. Gopal Lal, contractor.

The grievance of the Petitioners is that the institution, which was established in the memory of father-in-law of the Petitioner No. 1 has been grabbed in collusion by Respondent No. 5 with the principal and other members of the institution.

The grounds mentioned in this writ petition are such that they involve disputed questions of fact and also require evidence to be led by the Petitioners. The relief claimed by the Petitioner is also in the nature of injunction, which the Petitioner can claim by filing civil suit.

On the ground of alternate remedy, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. However, the Petitioners may filed civil suit before the competent court for redressal of their grievance.