Naik J.

The only question that arises for consideration in this miscellaneous petition is whether the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur (respondent No. 2) could be held to be the Registrar of public Trusts within the meaning of section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. The petitioners claim to be working as sarbarakars of the temple 'Shri Radhakrishna and Bhagwan Viswakarma', Niwadganj, Jabalpur. They allege that after the coming into force of the Act, respondent No. 3, Kashiram Viswakarma, made an application for registration of the aforesaid trust under section 4 of the Act to the registrar of public Trusts, Jabalpur, where Shri V.S. Tambey, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jabalpur, purporting to act as the Registrar of Public Trusts; Jubalpur, passed the impugned order (Annexure A) on 12-3-1955, in Revenue Cace (No. 47/125 of 1954-55, side head XXXIII /9, ordering the Registration of Shri Radhakrishna Bhagwan temple as a public trust with the direction that, Kashiram, respondent No. 3, be recorded as the sole trustee of the said trust in addition to the other entries made in the Register of the Registrar. The petitioners contend that he aforesaid order (Annexure A) was passed by a person who was not authorized act as ‘the Registrar of Public Trusts' within the meaning of section 3 of the Act, and that it was also passed without making any inquiry as contemplated by section 5 of the Act.

3 It is not in dispute that impugned order was passed by Shri O.S. Tambey, I.A.S., purporting to act as 'the Registrar of Public Trusts Jabalpur'. He was at the relevant time acting as the Additional Deputy Commissioner (now known as the Additional Collector), Jabalpur.

4. Under section 3 of the Act, the Collector shall be the Registrar of Public Trusts in respect of every public trusts the principal office or the principal place of business of which as declared in the application made under sub-section (3) of section 4 is situate in his district’. As it is not disputed that Shri V.S. is Tambey was not the Collector, the question that arises for consideration is whether an Additional Collector could act as the Registrar of Public Trusts within the meaning of section 3 of the Act.

5. A similar question arose for consideration in Shah Fariduddin Vs. Mohammad Akbar and others 1957 NLJ 551 at p. 552 wherein an order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (as the office of the Additional Collector was then designated) came to be challenged on the ground that he could not act as the Registrar of Public Trusts under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act. Answering the contention the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (Mudholkar and Kotval, JJ.) said:

"Under section 3 (1) of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner shall be the Registrar of Public Trusts in respect of every public trust the principal office or the principal place of, business of which as declared, in application made under sub-section (3) of section 4 is situate in his district, It will thus be clear that the Deputy Commissioner alone is constituted the Registrar of Public Trusts and an Additional Deputy Commissioner cannot arrogate to himself or cannot be delegated powers to perform the function of the Registrar of Public Trusts. Reliance, is, however placed on the provisions of section 9-A of the C.P. Land Revenue Act, 1917, on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3. That section reads thus:

(1) The State Government may appoint an Additional Deputy-Commissioner in a district.

(2) An Additional Deputy Commissioner shall hold his office during the pleasure of the State Government.

(3) An Additional Deputy Commissioner shall exercise such powers and discharge such duties conferred and imposed on a Deputy C0mmissioner or a Collector by this Act or by any enactment for the time being in force (or by any rule made under this Act or any such other enactment) in such cases or class of cases as the Deputy Commissioner of the district may