The main legal point established in the judgment is the Registrar's power to summon documents and information from a public trust and the duty of the trust to provide transparency.

Sujoy Paul, J.

1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:--

"In the light of the abovementioned facts and circumstances of the case, entire proceedings in case No. 03/13-14/B-113 (Trust) including order date Nil/Aug/2014 i.e. Annexure-P/4 and show cause notice dated 19.08.2014 Annexure P/1A and order dated 9.03.2015 Annexure P/1 be quashed or alternatively the respondent be directed to dispose the application filed by the petitioner i.e. P/5 first, before proceeded further in the matter."

2. Shri Ankur Mody, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a charitable trust, registered under M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951 (for short, the 'Act'). The Trust was set up with the object of doing public charity. The Trust Deed is filed as Annexure P/3. It is contended that in the year 2006, certain properties of the Trust were sold by the trustee of the Trust in exercise of its power as per clause 10 (n) of the Trust Deed. It is further contended that on the basis of some complaint received behind the back of the petitioner, a case was registered by the respondent against the petitioner. The said case is registered as per section 14 of the Act and resultantly, a show cause notice (Annexure P/4) was issued to the petitioner. On 19.8.2014, the petitioner received the notice (Annexure P-1A). In turn, the petitioner filed an application/reply dated 20.10.2014 (Annexure P/5). Thereafter, the matter was adjourned by the respondents on 27.10.2014, 5.11.2014, 26.12.2014, 12.1.2015, 30.1.2015 and 19.2.2015. Shri Mody submits that adjournments were granted for the reasons solely attributable to the respondent and for no fault on the part of the petitioner. The order sheets showing the same are filed as Annexure P/6. The matter was then fixed on 9.3.2015. On the said date, impugned order, Annexure P/1, is passed, whereby the petitioner was directed to supply necessary informations and documents.

3. Criticizing this order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order is arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. Shri Mody added that section 14 of the Act makes it clear that it has to give way to the conditions of instrument of trust. Since instrument of trust contains a condition, which permits the trustee to sell the property, the impugned action of the respondent is wholly without authority and jurisdiction. To bolster this contention, he relied on a judgment of Bombay High Court in Bomi Jal Mistry and others v. Joint Charity Commissioner, dated 27.3.2002, reported in AIR 2002 BOMBAY 342. Shri Mody further submits that the objection of the petitioner regarding authority/jurisdiction of the respondent raised in Annexure P/5 goes to the root of the matter. The said authority is obliged to decide the said objection before proceeding further. He submits that the impugned notice and orders will make it clear that the authority, in fact, has exercised power under section 14 of the Act and, therefore, without deciding the question of competency, the said authority cannot proceed further. By placing reliance on (1970) 3 SCC 119 (D.N. Roy v. State of Bihar), it is contended that if from the averments of notice and impugned order it is clear that power is exercised on a complaint and it falls within the ambit of section 14 of the Act, the respondent cannot justify its order on the basis of any other provision of the Act. Heavy reliance is placed on para 7 of the judgment of D.N. Roy (supra). By placing reliance on IA No. 2258/2015 and IA No. 2251/2015, Shri Mody submits that after filing of this petition also the respondent is acting in a hasty manner. A special audit is directed, which was totally unwarranted.

4. No other point is pressed by Shri Mody.

5. Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent, supported the impugned order. He submits that contention of the petitioner that the action is taken und