IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (JABALPUR BENCH)
SANJAY DWIVEDI, J.
Godar Akhada Trust Mandhata - Appellant
Versus
Sub Divisional Officer and Registrar, Public Trust and Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 1732 of 2021
Decided On : 01-03-2021
Public Trust - Legality and Validity of Order - Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 - Sections 26, 27 - The court discussed the legality and validity of the order issued by the Registrar, Public Trust under Sections 26 and 27 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951. The key legal provisions discussed were Section 26 and 27 of the Act, which empower the Registrar to direct trustees to apply to the court for issuing directions and give power to the court to hear such applications and pass appropriate orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a public trust, challenged the legality and validity of the order issued by the Registrar, Public Trust under Sections 26 and 27 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 alleged irregularities in the management of the trust and filed an application, leading to the issuance of directions by the Registrar. The petitioner filed a review application seeking to recall the directions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Registrar exceeded its jurisdiction by recalling the entire order and exercising the power provided under Section 26 of the Act, which was not assailed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The court set aside the order passed by the Registrar and modified the directions issued by the Registrar.
Issues: The issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the Registrar to issue directions under Sections 26 and 27 of the Act, the legality of the review application, and the scope of the Registrar's powers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Registrar exceeded its jurisdiction by recalling the entire order and exercising the power provided under Section 26 of the Act, which was not assailed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The court also emphasized the provisions of Sections 26 and 27 of the Act, which empower the Registrar and the court to address irregularities in the management of public trusts.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the order passed by the Registrar was set aside. The directions issued by the Registrar were modified, and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were given the liberty to challenge the order rejecting their application.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Dwivedi, J.
Since learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the contesting respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are ready to argue the case finally, it is accordingly heard finally.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 08.05.2020 (Annexure P/1) whereby the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Registrar, Public Trust, Khandwa has done nothing, but, issued certain direction to the petitioner-trust on an application filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 26 and 27 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 08.01.2021 whereby the Registrar, Public Trust, exceeding its jurisdiction has entirely reviewed its own order dated 08.05.2020.
2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioner is a public trust duly registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act of 1951'). The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed an application under Section 26 and 27 of the Act of 1951 before the Registrar, Public Trust stating that they are the journalists and social workers and working for the benefit of the trust. In the application, they have pointed out certain irregularities committed by the management of the petitioner-trust while managing the property of the trust, which, according to them, runs in crores. It is also alleged by them that no regular audit of the accounts of the trust is being done and the audit reports are also not being kept in the record properly.
3. The petitioner opposed the application filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by filing reply.
4. The Registrar, Public Trust, by order dated 08.05.2020, virtually rejected the application, however, directed the office bearers of the petitioner-trust that in the interest of trust they would conduct the activities of the trust with the consensus of the trustees, duly maintain the record of income and expenses of the trust and conduct audit of the same, conduct the meeting of the trust from time to time after calling all trusties and determine the agenda in the meeting and submit the details of meeting and also the income and expenses of the trust in every three months.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-trust moved an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating therein that the direction issued by the Registrar, Public Trust is contrary to law, as the same cannot be done by him exercising powers provided under Section 26 of the Act.
In the review application, the petitioner prayed that from the order dated 08.05.2020 only the directions issued by the Registrar to the petitioner-trust be deleted, which are as under:-
However, the Registrar by order 08.01.2021 (Annexure P/2) decided the review application finally and referred the matter to the District and Sessions Judge, Khandwa proposing the issues for determination. The directions issued by the Registrar exercising powers under Section 26 of the Act are as under:-
^^yksd U;kl vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 26&27 ds rgr ekuuh; ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh'k egksn; [k.Mok dks U;kl ds laca/k esa fuEu fcanqvksa ij fofu'p; fd;k tkuk izLrkfor gSa&
1- Jh ?ku';keiqjh dks xksnM+ v[kkM+k U;kl ea/kkrk dh dk;Zdkjh U;klh@v/;{k ,oa U;klh in ls i`Fkd fd;k tkdj] orZeku
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Registrar exceeded its jurisdiction by recalling the entire order and exercising the power provided under Section 26 of the Act, which was....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Sub Divisional Officer, acting as Registrar, must have a specific delegation of powers in accordance with the Madhya Pradesh Public Tru....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a person interested in a Public Trust to challenge the finding of the Registrar and the necessity of a notice under Section 80 ....
The registrar's refusal to grant permission for trust property sale must be supported by evidence of prejudice to public interest; arbitrary denials are against statutory provisions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.