2026:JHHC:5627-DB -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (PIL) No. 6533 of 2023 Rishi K. Awasthi aged about 45 years, S/o Pandit Krishna Awasthi R/o Bilasi Town, Deoghar, P.O and P.S- Deoghar, Dist-Deoghar, currently residing at C-2/403, Gardenia Glory Apartment, P.O and P.S- Sector 46, Dist- Noida-201301, Uttar Pradesh. … … … Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, officiating from his office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa Road, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi-834004. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar having his office at O/o the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. Town Deoghar, District Deoghar. 3. Income Tax Department through its Principal Chief Commissioner, Jharkhand officiating from his office at Mahatma Gandhi Road, Central Revenue Building, P.O and PS New Delhi, Dist-Ranchi. 4. Central Bureau of Investigation through its Director officiating from his office at 6th Floor, Lodhi Road, Plot No. 5-B, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Marg, CGO Complex, P.O and P.S and Dist- New Delhi, Delhi 110003 5. Enforcement Directorate through its Director officiating from his office at LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, 6th floor, Khan Market, P.O and P.S and Dist- New Delhi, Delhi 110003 … … … Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate For the State: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G. For the ED: Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, Advocate For the ITD: Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Advocate For the CBI: Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, Advocate --------- 06/Dated: 25.02.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. After hearing the matter for some time on 27.01.2026, we had made the following order: “The petitioner complains about some Public Charitable Trusts allegedly selling or misusing their properties. The petitioner has not bothered to make these Public Charitable Trusts as parties 2026:JHHC:5627-DB -2- to this petition. The petitioner has also not clearly disclosed the provision of any laws or executive instructions in breach of which such properties are dealt with. 2. Earlier, the petitioner had filed the similar petition but the same was withdrawn on account of vagueness in pleadings and particulars. 3. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, the learned A.C. to A.G., submits that the 2nd respondent will file an affidavit indicating the authorities, if any, empowered to deal with complaints concerning properties of a Public Charitable Trust. He says that he will also disclose whether any laws or executive instructions exist to govern the disposal of properties by Public Charitable Trusts particularly when the allegation is that such properties are being sold, transferred or otherwise being contrary to the object of such Public Charitable Trusts. 4. The affidavit must be filed and served to the concerned parties by 20.02.2026. 5. We list the matter on 25.02.2026 for further consideration.” 3. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, the learned A.C. to A.G., on instructions of the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, has now made a statement that the District Sub-Registrar, Deoghar, having office at District Collectorate, Deoghar, will be the proper authority to deal with complaints concerning properties of a Public Charitable Trust. 4. Though, no affidavit has been filed as referred to in paragraph 3 of our order of 27.01.2026, we accept Mr. Piyush Chitresh’s statement, made on instructions that the District Sub-Registrar, Deoghar, will investigate into the complaints of the petitioner concerning the dealings or disposals of the properties of Public Charitable Trust. 5. The petitioner has not annexed copies of any complaints. Therefore, we direct the District Sub-Registrar at Deoghar to treat the petitioner’s writ petition itself as a complaint and to consider and dispose it of in accordance with law and on its own merits within three months from today. For this, the District Sub-Registrar, Deoghar must hear the 2026:JHHC:5627-DB -3- petitioner and trust against whom the petitioner has made complaints. The District Sub-Registrar, Deoghar must pass a reasoned order and communicate to all the parties. 6. The District Sub-Registrar, Deoghar finds merit in any of the complaints, it is expected that he takes action as permissible under the law. The District Sub-Registrar, Deoghar must take into consideration the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chenchu Rami Reddy and another Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, (1986) 3 SCC 391. 7. In the opening paragraph of Chenchu Rami Reddy (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed “more often than not detriment to what belongs to ‘many’, collectively, does not cause pangs to ‘any’, for no one is personally hurt directly. That is why public officials and public- minded citizens entrusted with the care of ‘public property’ have to show exemplary vigilance. What is true of ‘public property’ is equally true of property belonging to religious or charitable institutions or endowments.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the penultimate paragraph, has reiterated that the property of such institutions or endowments must be jealously protected. It must be protected, for a large segment of the community has a beneficial interest in it. The authorities exercising the powers under the Act must not only be most alert and vigilant in such matters but also be aware of the ways of the present-day world, as well as its ugly realities. They cannot afford to take things at face value or to take a less-than-close, closest-and-best-attention approach to guard against all pitfalls. The approving authority must be aware that in such matters the trustees, or persons authorised to sell by private negotiations, can, in a given case, enter into a secret or invisible underhand deal or understanding with the purchasers at the cost of the concerned institution. 2026:JHHC:5627-DB -4- 9. We dispose of this petition with the above directions and request the District Sub-Registrar, Deoghar, to take into consideration the above- referred observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chenchu Rami Reddy (supra). However, we clarify that we have not investigated the allegations made by the petitioner, and therefore all contentions of all parties are left open for the District Sub Registrar to investigate and decide in the first instance. 10. All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this order. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) February 25, 2026 N.A.F.R. APK/VK Uploaded on 28.02.2026