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 Trusts Act, 1951.

ORDER/JUDGMENT : – Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri S. K. Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate for respondent No. 1/State.

Shri Utkarsh Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

Since respondent No. 2 is the main contesting respondent and he has filed his reply/return, therefore, the matter is heard finally.

By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is questioning the legality, validity and propriety of orders dated 2-8-2021 (Annexure-P/9) and 14-9-2021 (Annexure-P/10) passed by respondent No. 1.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is challenging the impugned orders confining his submission to the extent that those orders have not been passed by the competent authority. According to him the orders can be passed by the Registrar and as per the section 3 of Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (for short the ‘Act, 1951’), the Collector of the District shall be the Registrar but the officer who is at present holding the post Registrar, is the Sub Divisional Officer and by virtue of work distribution memo he has been assigned the work of Registrar and as per section 34-A of the Act, 1951 though the Registrar can delegate the powers to any revenue officer not below the rank of Sub Divisional Officer, but in the present case, there is no such delegation in favour of the Sub Divisional Officer by the Registrar (Collector) but only under work distribution memo orders have been passed and as such, the impugned orders passed by respondent No. 1/Sub Divisional Officer are void. Though the issue raised by the petitioner is purely legal and said position has not been disputed by Shri Utkarsh Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent i.e. respondent No. 2 but he opposes the petition on the ground of locus of the petitioner and submits that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has no locus to challenge the impugned orders.

3. As per the fact of the case, Mandir Shri Kamali Ji Trust Samiti (for brevity the ‘Trust’) is a public trust registered under the provisions of the Act, 1951 bearing registration No. 01/B-113/1964-65.

(3.1) In the year 1989, the then Trustee of the Trust had elected the present petitioner as a President of the Trust and he was continued on the said post. But vide resolution dated 20-3-2013, some of the Trustees appointed respondent No. 2 as the President of the Trust. The said order of appointment of respondent No. 2 was challenged by the petitioner before respondent No. 1 and by order dated 27-3-2014 the resolution dated 20-3-2013 appointing respondent No. 2 as a President of the Trust was declared to be illegal and void and direction has also been issued for restoring the position existed prior to passing the resolution dated 20-3-2013. Respondent No. 1 thereafter restrained the respondent No. 2 to operated the bank accounts of the Trust under his signature but that order has not been challenged and according to the petitioner he was continued to be the President of the Trust.

(3.2) Respondent No. 2 had submitted an application before respondent No. 1 for treating him to the President of the Trust and on his application an order has been passed on 4-1-2016, in which according to the petitioner he had not been given any opportunity of hearing and also not given any notice that respondent No. 2 was treated as the President of the Trust and entries of public trust were corrected accordingly.

(3.3) The order dated 4-1-2016 has been assailed by the petitioner by filing a civil suit i.e. No. 687-A/2016 before the 6th Civil Judge, Class-II, Bhopal. However, the resolution was again passed by the Trustee of the Trust on 15-1-2021 in which the petitioner has again been appointed as the President of the Trust. Therefore, the civil suit has been withdrawn on 13-7-2021.

(3.4) The petitioner filed a complaint before respondent No. 1 along with one Hridesh Bhargava alleging various financial irregularitie