SHREE ADYA KATYAYANI SHAKTI PEETH MANDIR KARAMCHAR Vs. SHREE ADYA KATYAYANI SHAKTI PEETH (MANDIR) TRUST &

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second round of litigation. This round of litigation has been initiated pursuant to a direction issued by the learned Single Judge vide its judgement dated 21.07.2009, passed in the petitioner's own case. The said writ petition was numbered as: WP(C) no. 4390/1998. The direction issued was, that the petitioners, should make a representation to respondent no.1 trust, within four weeks of the date of the judgement, which was, required to be considered by the governing body of the said trust after giving them an opportunity of hearing. Respondent no.1 trust was directed to decide the representation within a period of twelve weeks. It is the decision, on that representation, taken by the governing body, which has been communicated by the secretary of respondent no. trust vide letter dated 18.11.2011.

(2.) It may be worthwhile to note that the learned Single Judge in his judgement dated 21.07.2009 had indicated that the writ petition gave rise to disputed questions of fact, which required adjudication by an appropriate forum. Reference in respect of the same was placed by the learned Single Judge on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of A. Jithendernath vs. Jibilee Hills Coop. House Building Society & Anr., 2006 10 SCC 96 and Raj Kumar Singh vs Union of India & Ors., 2009 2 JT 58. The learned Single Judge, however, observed that permitting the petitioner to undertake an amendment at that stage, would serve no purpose, and, therefore, the request for amendment was declined. Apart from this, the learned Single Judge also made an observation with regard to the question, as to whether a writ would be maintainable qua respondent no.1 trust. This question, however, was left open in view of the direction issued to respondent no.1 trust to consider the representation of the petitioners.

(3.) It is in this background that the petitioners have approached this court, again, under Article 226 of the constitution. The two reliefs which are sought in the petition are, broadly, as follows: First, the letter dated 18.11.2011 be quashed. Second, a writ, in the nature of mandamus, be issued to respondent nos. 1 to 3, their agents, office bearers and representatives, commanding them to pay, all terminal benefits, arrears of salary etc. along with interest at the rate of 18%.