Chattisgarh High Court
Krishnakant Sharma vs Collector Cum Chairman on 8 August, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:39702
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4231 of 2025
1 - Krishnakant Sharma S/o Late Shri Ramdev Sharma Aged About 62
Years R/o Village Godhora, Block - Bharatpur, District M C B Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Collector Cum Chairman District Committee National Trust, District M C
B Chhattisgarh
2 - Miss Mamta Sharma Alias Gudiya D/o Late Shri Ramdev Sharma Aged
About 50 Years R/o Village Godhora, Block - Bharatpur, District M C B
Chhattisgarh
3 - Ramakant Sharma S/o Late Shri Ramdev Sharma Aged About 48 Years
R/o Village Godhora, Block - Bharatpur, District M C B Chhattisgarh
4 - Chandrakala W/o Shatrughan Prasad Aged About 58 Years R/o Village
Basna, Block Jaisinghnagar, Dist. Shahdol Madhya Pradesh
5 - Saroj W/o Rambadan Pandey Aged About 46 Years R/o New Ramnagar
Block Satna Dist. Satna Madhya Pradesh
6 - Block Education Officer Block Bharatpur, M C B Chhattisgarh
----Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For petitioners : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate
For Respondent-State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, P.L.
Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Order on Board
08/08/2025
1. With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI JHA
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-
Date:
2025.08.13
11:30:09
+0530
210.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be directed
to call for the records of the case for the kind perusal
of this Hon’ble Court.
10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased
to issue an appropriate writ or order and direct the
respondent No. 1 to form the local level committee
under the national trust Act 1999 or if already
constituted to make it functional and further to decide
the application of the petitioner for appointing him as
guardian of Respondent No. 2 as per the Act of 1999
within a time frame in the interest of justice.
10.3 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also be granted.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
and res, no. 2 to 5 are brother and sisters. The father of
petitioner was a government employee and was retired from
the post of head master from school education department.
During the service period he nominated res. no. 2 as his
nominee for receiving family pension and other benefits. The
Respondent no. 2 is more than 80% disabled and is unable to
do her daily routine works. She is completely dependent upon
petitioner who is her elder brother and also takes care of her
day to day needs. That due to the disability it is impossible for
res. no. 2 to move from place to another place for fulfilling
departmental formalities and due to which she could not get
the benefits of family pension and other benefits.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner with the consent of res. no.2 and other relatives
made an application before concerned department for
appointing him as legal guardian and to fulfill the formalities
and receive the benefit on her behalf, but the respondent no. 6
3
directed the petitioner to get a valid guardian certificate from
the appropriate court. The petitioner thereafter filed an
application under sec. 10 of Guardian and Wards Act 1890
before learned Additional District Judge Manendragarh, but
same was rejected on the ground that since res. no. 2 is a
major lady and would not come within the purview of Guardian
and Wards Act and therefore guardian cannot be appointed
under the said Act. Thereafter the petitioner again made a
fresh application before res. no.1 for deciding his application
to appoint him as guardian under national trust Act, but same
was not accepted by the concerned office stating that since
the committee is not functional at present in the concerned
district. As per sec.13 r/w sec. 14 of National Trust Act, 1999
the power to decide the application for appointment of
guardian for person with multiple disability has been accorded
to local committee which is a district committee headed by the
District magistrate. As per the Act the local level committee is
to be headed by district magistrate, but since the committee is
not functional in MCB district, the application of the petitioner
is not being accepted. Hence this petition.
5. Learned State Counsel submits that as per Section 13 r/w
Section 14 of the National Trust Act, 1999, a local level
committee has been constituted in MCB district.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
4
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case instead
of keeping this petition pending, I find it appropriate to dispose
of the same at this stage directing the petitioner to file a fresh
application under Section 14 of the National Trust Act 1999
before the concerned Local Level Committee within a period
of 15 days from today and in turn the concerned Local Level
Committee shall decide the application of the petitioner in
accordance with law, rules and regulations as expeditiously as
possible.
8. It is made clear that this Court has not observed anything on
the merits of the case.
9. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Jyoti