Dixit, C. J.-

1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing an order passed by the Registrar of Public Trusts, Hoshangabad, on 18th July 1963 holding that an application filed by the opponents Nos. 1 to 5, under section 26 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was maintainable, and fixing a date for a hearing of the submissions of the parties on that application.

2. The material facts are that in 1952 the petitioner, claiming himself to be the trustee and manager of "Gokarneshwar Mahadeo" temple situated' in Kharkhedi, made an application for registration of the temple as a public trust under the Act. This application was sent by the, Registrar to the Sub-Divisional Officer for enquiry and report, but no order of any kind was made thereon after an enquiry in conformity with sections 5 and 6 of the Act. On 24th August 1959 the non-applicants Nos. 1 to 5 made an application under section 26, of the Act before the Registrar for removal of the petitioner from the manager-ship and trusteeship of the temple. This application was sent by the Registrar to the Sub-Divisional Officer for enquiry and report. The Sub-Divisional Officer reported that, there was no entry in the register of public trusts as regards the temple in question having, been declared and registered as a public trust. When the matter was taken, up for hearing by the Registrar on receipt of, the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioner raised the objection that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to entertain any application under section 26 of the, Act unless and until the temple was first found a public trust after an enquiry in accordance with sections 5 and 6 of the Act, and then registered as a public trust under the Act. The Registrar also found that there was• no entry in the register of public trusts about the temple having, been declared, and registered, as a public trust. He, however, came to the, conclusion that on the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer it' was evident that the temple as a public trust, that the non-registration on he temple as a public trust did not, alter its character as a Public trust, and that the registration of the temple as a public trust was a mere formality which' could be completed at any time. After making these observations, he accepted the recommendation of the Sub-Divisional officer that the temple should be registered as a public trust. On this, view the Registrar held that the aforesaid' non-applicants' application under section 26 of the Act was maintainable.

3. This application must be granted. It is plain from what has been stated above that on the application, which, the petitioner filed in 1952 for registration, of the temple as a public trust no enquiry at all was held in conformity with sections 5 and 6 of the Act for determining whether the temple is or is not a public trust Land, no order of any kind was passed on that application. It has been held by this Court in numerous cases that the provisions contained in sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Act are mandatory and if the Registrar makes an order with regard to the registration of a trust as a public trust without holding ,any enquiry under section 5 (1) and without recording any findings with reasons there for in, regard to the matters enumerated there in, then the order declaring the trust to be a public trust is illegal and invalid. See Khemchand Vs. Registrar of Public, Trusts, 1963 JLJ-SN 153; Sunderbai Vs. D.C. Hoshangabad, 1961 MPLJ-SN 103; Rewaram Vs. Registrar P. T., 1961 JLJ 952. In this case, the Registrar himself has in the impugned order that no enquiry under section 5, of the Act was at held. But his view that the registration of a trust as a public trust is only a procedural formality is clearly contrary to the decisions of this' Court referred to above It is true that when the non-applicants' application' under sectio