B. Dayal, C. J.- 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by a decree-holder who obtained a decree against one Goswami Ratanprabha alias Bhanuprabha. The decree was transferred for execution to Bhopal and there certain properties were attached in execution. Two persons Laxminarayan and Purushottam filed a regular suit No. 19-A of 1961 for a declaration and injunction that the properties belonged to a public trust and could not be sold in execution of the decree. That suit was ultimately dismissed on technical grounds and nothing more need be said about it. The respondent No.3 Babulal then filed an application under section 4 of the M. P. Public Trusts Act, 1951, for registration of the public trust. The present petitioner-decree-holder contested those proceedings on various grounds which need not be mentioned here. Those proceedings were entrusted by the Collector who was the Registrar under the Act to a Sub-Divisional Officer for enquiry. Apparently, the order was passed under section 34 of the said Act. This order was passed on 28th August 1962. Thereafter, an application was made by Babulal respondent No.3, before the Collector and Registrar of Public Trusts for an injunction restraining the decree-holder from executing his decree by sale of the properties in question. By order dated 2nd March 1963 the Collector exercising his inherent powers ordered that the present applicant will not take any further steps in the execution of his decree against the property. A notice was also given to the applicant to show-cause why the interim injunction should not be made absolute. This order was passed ex-parte.

2. The present writ petition has been filed against both these orders. With regard to the order of transfer it is contended that the Collector had no power to pass that order under the Act. We do not agree. Section 34 of the Act reads as follows.-

"Where in any case an enquiry is to be made by the Registrar under this Act, he may himself make the enquiry or may forward the case for investigation and report to any revenue officer not below the rank of a Deputy Collector."

The Collector, therefore, had authority under this section to send the case for enquiry and report to the sub-Divisional Officer. Moreover, under section 34-A, which came into force in 1964, the Registrar is further authorized to delegate all or any of his powers and duties under this Act to any revenue officer of his district not below the rank of a Sub-Divisional Officer. In this case the enquiry has been referred to a Sub-Divisional Officer and, therefore, at least now after the passing of this section it will become a mere technicality to quash the order of the Registrar when he can pass a fresh order under section 34-A for the same purpose.

3. It was further contended that the objection raised by the applicant before the Registrar was that the person who had made an application under section 4 of the Act was not entitled to make that application and that, therefore, unless the Collector decided that matter, he could not delegate his powers to the Sub-Divisional Officer. We are unable to agree with this contention. In the first place, the question whether the applicant before the Registrar was entitled to make the application or not itself needed investigation and was a question within the jurisdiction of the Registrar to decide, and there is no reason why this investigation itself could not be entrusted to the Sub-Divisional Officer. Moreover, under section 5 of the Act the Registrar could suo motu start proceedings for registration of a public trust and if after the enquiry the Registrar comes to the conclusion that the applicant was not entitled to make the application under section 4 but that the facts were such that the Registrar would suo motu proceed to Registrar the public trust, he would be entitled to do so. Therefore, the mere objection that the person who had made the application purporting to be under section 4 was