The interpretation of the expression 'person having an interest in the trust' under Section 3 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, and the implications of the pendency of a Special Leave Petition arising from the revocation of leave under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code.

1. This is a petition filed under Section 3 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking a direction to the first respondent - trust and the second respondent - sole trustee to provide the information sought for by the petitioner listed in schedule A to the petition and also seeking a direction for the appointment of an independent auditor to examine and audit the accounts of the first respondent trust for a period of three years immediately preceding the date of petition.

2. I have heard Mr.Karthik Seshadri, for M/s.Iyer and Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.K.Kabir, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.M.Dhiraviyanathan, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. By a last Will and Testament executed on 19.7.1820, one Mr.John D'Monte bequeathed all his fortunes in favour of various charitable institutions principally under the control and management of the Bishop or Vicar General of St.Thome. The Will also contains a direction to appoint and nominate annually a Committee of Syndics consisting of six pious and respectable persons. The testator also executed a Codicil on 25.4.1821. The said Will was probated on the file of the then Supreme Court of Judicature at Madras in the year 1827.

4. One of the properties owned by the said trust is a vast extent of land measuring approximately 180 grounds in Chamiers Road. The property is known as Benz Garden.

5. In the year 2002, the first respondent - trust represented by its sole trustee filed OP.NOs.219 and 220 of 2002 under Section 7 of the Act, praying for sanctioning and approving an agreement of lease entered into by the trust with two institutions by name Holy Satellite Town Private Limited and Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology. The petitioner herein, who is an ex-service man and a retired bureaucrat, attempted to intervene and oppose those petitions. Though the applications for impleading filed by the petitioner were dismissed, his opposition to the project was considered by this Court, on the basis that the petitioner is an interested person. Ultimately, the said petitions filed by the trust were dismissed by this Court.

6. After the dismissal of the said petitions, the petitioner came across the occupation of the property by the two institutions with whom the lease had been entered into. Therefore, the petitioner issued a notice dated 3.2.2007, to which the respondents sent an evasive reply on 25.2.2007.

7. Thereafter, the respondents entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 12.11.2007 with a company by name Nitesh Estates Private Limited for the lease of the said property to them for a period of 66 years and for its development by the lessee. This information came to light when the proposed lessee company attempted to raise funds through public issues. It was found upon enquiry that the proposed lessee had also issued a disclaimer in the offer document filed with the Securities Exchange Board of India that it had not tied up the funding for financing the proposed project. However, the documents disclose that they had paid a sum of Rs.50 Million to the respondents under the Memorandum of Understanding. But, the details of the Memorandum of Understanding were not available.

8. It also came to light that the respondents entered into the agreement with several parties, one of whom instituted a suit in CS.No.501 of 2007 on the file of this Court. All these activities, shrouded in secrecy, has compelled the petitioner to come up with the above petition under Section 3 of the Act, for the reliefs referred to above.

9. The respondents have filed a counter to the main original petition contending inter alia

(i) that the petitioner is not "a person interested" within the meaning of Section 3 of the

Act;

(ii) that since the petitioner is neither a trustee nor a beneficiary nor a person, who has contributed to the activities of the trust, he cannot be termed as a person interested;