Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010125112026 2026:GAU-AS:9213 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1961/2022 ANJANA SAVAPANDIT W/O SRI MADAN GUPTA C/O SMTI RUNUMI SAVAPANDIT NAZIR ALI JORHAT P.O. AND DIST-JORHAT ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION WEST BLOCK VII RAMAKRISHNA PURAM NEW DELHI-110066 2:THE DIRECTOR CENTRAL HINDI DIRECTORATE WEST BLOCK VII RAMAKRISHNA PURAM NEW DELHI-110066 3:PRADHAN MANTRI RASHTRABHASHA PRACHAR SAMITY WARDHA MAHARASHTRA (PIN-442003) 4:PURBANCHAL MANTRI RASHTRABHASHA PRACHAR SAMITY WARDHA MAHARASHTRA (PIN-442003) Page No.# 2/5 5:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED HEREIN THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SACHIVALYA DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JORHAT DISTRICT JORHAT 7:SURYABANSHI AWADH KISHORE CHOUDHURY S/O LATE AWADH KISHORE CHOUDHURY R/O VILL AND P.O.-GHARWARA PIN-843315 DIST-SITAMARHI BIHAR P/R/A C/O RASHTRABHASHA PRACHAR SAMITY HINDI NAGAR WARDHA 442003 MAHARASHTRA ------------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.D. Goswami, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Borthakur, Sr. Advocate Mr. J. Handique, Govt. Advocate Ms. P.R. Mahanta, Standing Counsel Mr. P. Khataniar, Advocate Ms. M. Dev, Advocate BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 23.06.2026 Heard Mr. B.D. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P. Khataniar, the learned counsel appears on Page No.# 3/5 behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Ms. M. Dev, the learned counsel also claims to appear on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Ms. P.R. Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 5; Mr. J. Handique, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent No. 6; and Mr. A. Ganguly, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 7. 2. At the outset, it is pertinent to take note of the reason as to why both Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned Senior Counsel and Ms. M. Dev, the learned counsel claim to be appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 3. The respondent No. 3 is a Trust. One group of members claims that it is managing the affairs of the Trust and, from amongst its members, the respondent No. 4 has been appointed. There is, however, another group which also claims to be managing the affairs of the respondent No. 3, and one of the members of that group claims to be the Purbanchal Mantri, i.e., the respondent No. 4. It is for this reason that Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned Senior Counsel, represents one faction, whereas Ms. M. Dev, the learned counsel appears for the other faction, both claiming to represent the same party. 4. It is also relevant to take note of that the faction Page No.# 4/5 represented by Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned Senior Counsel had appointed the petitioner as the Prantiya Sanchalak, whereas the respondent No. 7 claims to be the Prantiya Sanchalak of the Assam Rajya Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samiti, which is a unit of the respondent No. 3. 5. The case projected by the petitioner is that the respondent No. 7 was removed from the post of Prantiya Sanchalak by the respondent No. 3 and that the petitioner was appointed to the said post by a separate order dated 03.01.2019. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent No. 7 has not vacated the office and, consequently, the petitioner has been unable to discharge the duties attached to the said post. It is under such circumstances, the instant writ petition has been filed. 6. This Court has also taken note of the various affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4 by the faction represented by Ms. M. Dev, the learned counsel. The respondent No. 7 has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition. Replies thereagainst have been filed by the petitioner. 7. From the materials on record, it is apparent that there are serious disputes as to who actually represents the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. There are also disputes as to whether the faction Page No.# 5/5 claiming to represent the respondent No. 3 had appointed the petitioner or not. 8. It may not be out of place to mention that both Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for one faction of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, and Ms. M. Dev, the learned counsel appearing for the other faction, admit that the issue as to who is presently in charge of the management of the respondent No. 3 is presently pending before the Joint Charity Commissioner at Wardha, Maharashtra. 9. Taking into account these disputed questions of fact, it is the opinion of this Court that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be exercised unless and until there is a clear decision by the Joint Charity Commissioner as to who is actually managing the affairs of the respondent No. 3. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands closed, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum after a decision is taken by the Joint Charity Commissioner on the issue presently pending before the said Authority regarding the management and affairs of the respondent No. 3. JUDGE Comparing Assistant