Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise remaining grievances in subsequent pending challenge.

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking various reliefs, primarily a direction to the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Registrar (Public Trust) to conclude proceedings initiated under Section 26 of the Chhattisgarh Public Trust Act, 1951

The petitioner also sought the removal of certain trustees and the appointment of new management for the "Shri Gopalji Panchayati Mandir" trust

During the pendency of this petition, the Registrar (Respondent No. 2) concluded the Section 26 proceedings and rejected the petitioner’s application via an order dated 02.11.2021

Consequently, the petitioner challenged that subsequent order in a fresh petition (WPC No. 395/2022)

1. Whether the writ petition seeking directions for the conclusion of statutory proceedings survives after those proceedings have reached a final order during the pendency of the litigation

2. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to withdraw the current petition to pursue all related grievances and grounds in the subsequently filed writ petition (WPC No. 395/2022)

The Court guided its decision by the principles of judicial economy and the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Section 26 of the Chhattisgarh Public Trust Act, 1951, which governs the procedure for the Registrar to seek directions from a Court regarding the administration of a public trust

The Court observed that the primary relief sought—the conclusion of proceedings under Section 26 of the Act of 1951—had become infructuous because Respondent No. 2 had already passed a final order on 02.11.2021

The petitioner’s counsel requested to withdraw the current petition provided they could raise all ancillary grounds (such as the legality of trustee appointments and trust management) within the new challenge directed at the final order in WPC No. 395/2022

Since the respondents expressed no objection to this withdrawal and the substantive issues were now part of a separate pending challenge, the Court found it appropriate to dispose of the matter without a merit-based adjudication, thereby avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings

The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case; all pending interlocutory applications were dismissed as a consequence