1 CGHC010312622026 2026:CGHC:36492 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4208 of 2026 Satyanarayan Sharma S/o Jagdish Aged About 84 Years Resident Bans Tall Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Religious Affairs And Public Trust Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Registrar Public Trust C/o Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Sub Divisional Officer Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Tahsildar, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Manager Union Bank Of India, Lily Chowk, Purani Basti Branch, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Mr. Satish Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan, Advocate For State : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy.G.A. For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Kaustubh Singh Thakur, Advocate on AMIT PATEL Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL Date: 2026.08.18 17:34:44 +0530 2 behalf of Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/08/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following reliefs:- “ 10.1 This Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned memo dated 09.07.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 1. 10.2 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order dated 09.07.2026 passed by the Registrar, Public Trust Act-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), whereby the Manager, Union Bank of India, Lily Chowk Branch Purani Basti, Raipur (C.G.)/Respondent No. 4 was directed that in pursuance of the order dated 09.07.2026 passed in WPC No. 1187/2026, the Collector, Raipur has authorized him to undertake further proceedings. On the basis of the said order, the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Registrar, Public Trust Act informed the concerned Bank Manager that he is verifying his signature and would operate the bank account in accordance with law. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that one cannot be a judge of his own case and, in the present case, the petitioner is authorizing himself to operate the bank account, which cannot be permitted in law. 3 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned order has rightly been passed, as the concerned Collector has delegated the power to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) to conduct an inquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (for short “the Act 1951”). 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the documents available on record, it appears that, so far as the act of the Registrar, Public Trust Act is concerned, since a petition is pending before this Court, no opinion can be given in this case. However, so far as the power and authority of the concerned S.D.O. (R) to pass such an order, authorizing himself to operate the bank account while directing the concerned Bank that his signature may be considered and he may be allowed to operate the bank account, is concerned, the same does not seem to be a correct proposition of law. Authorization means giving power and permission to another person. The concept of authority always involves at least two parties, i.e., one who gives the power and another who receive the said power. 5. The aforesaid aspect gets support from a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union vs. State of Bihar and others1. In which following has been stated in para 4, which reads as under:- 1 (1969) 1 SCC 765 4 4…….There being nothing in Section 2 (a) to the contrary, the word "authority" must be construed according to its ordinary meaning and therefore must mean a legal power given by one person to another to do an act. A person is said to be authorised or to have an authority when he is in such a position that he can act in a certain manner without incurring liability, to which he would be exposed but for the authority, or, so as to produce the same effect as if the person granting the authority had for himself done the act………..”. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the judgment, the impugned order dated 09.07.2026 is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the concerned Collector-cum-Registrar to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law while authorizing any authority to operate the bank account in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge AMIT PATEL