ORDER

1. This writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 17.11.2021 passed by respondent No.2, Registrar of Public Trust, District Barwani whereby the Registrar has issued certain directions for election of office bearers of the petitioner-Trust.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner No.1 happens to be the Trustee of Shri Digamber Jain Siddh Kshetra Bawangajaji (Chulagiri) Trust, Barwani whereas the petitioner No.2 is the said Trust through its authorities turstee-petitioner No.1. The said Trust has been registered as religious and charitable public trust under the provisions of M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

3. Case of the petitioner-Trust is that the management, appointment, election of the Trust is governed by the Constitution of Trust and no deviation therefrom is permissible, a copy of which is also placed on record. Before the Registrar, Public Trust, respondent No.4 preferred an application without reference to the provisions of the Act under which the same was being filed, claiming himself to be a lifetime trustee of the Trust and alleging that one of the trustees namely, respondent No.5-Rajkumar has been illegally appointed. It was prayed for staying the election process initiated by the petitionertrust.

4. A Reply to the application was also filed by respondent No.5 on 18.10.2021, denying the allegations levelled against him. On the aforesaid reply, a rejoinder was also filed by the respondent No.4.

5. Shri Vibhor Khandelwal, Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent No.2 the Registrar Public Trust without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner trust or to the trustees, who have been removed vide the impugned order in violation of the principles of natural justice and apart from that the Registrar himself had no such power to pass the impugned order under the provisions of Public Trust Act, 1951. It is further submitted that even the application filed by the respondent No.4 before the Registrar Public Trust did not have any provision under which the same was being filed and on said application the Registrar Public Trust has passed the impugned order. Counsel has submitted that the duties of the Registrar Public Trust are specifically provided under Section 22 of the Act, whereas any other order which can be made by the Registrar is under section 26 of the Act, which provides for application to the Court for direction and thus, it is submitted that at the most the Registrar could have referred the matter to the Court for its directions. In support of his contention, Shri Khandelwal has also relied upon decisions rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dalludas v. Registrar of Public Trusts, Hoshangabad reported in JLJ, 1971 Short Notes (135) and another decision of Division Bench in the case of Sheoprasad Dubey v. Registrar, Public Trusts, Sagar & others reported in JLJ, 1972 Short Notes (6). Thus, it is submitted that the Registrar Public Trust, Barwani has exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order wherein not only certain directions have been issued by the Registrar, two trustees, which were made by the petitioner trust were also removed. Counsel has submitted that for removal of trustees there is a separate provision under sections 9/25 of the Act and for which the remedy lies under section 8 of the Act.

6. On the other hand, Shri Vishal Baheti, Counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the Registrar Public Trust as no such order has been passed on any application purporting to be under section 26 of the Act. As a bare perusal of the application would reveal that none of the ingredients of section 26 were available in the aforesaid application which could have called for reference of the case to the District Judge for his directions