ORDER

1. Pleadings are complete. Counsel for the parties are ready to argue the matter finally. It is accordingly finally heard.

2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is questioning the validity of order 17.12.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Registrar, Public Trusts saying that though the Registrar, Public Trusts exercising power provided under section 22 of the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1951’) has passed the impugned order, but he is not an authority notified and therefore, he cannot exercise the power of Registrar, Public Trusts and pass the impugned order.

3. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Registrar directing certain things to be done and conduct which has been shown by him do not empower him to exercise that power and, therefore, the order is without jurisdiction. He has also pointed out that the Registrar exercised the power under section 22 of the Act, 1951 and issued certain directions which could have been done only by the Civil Court, if any, reference is made under section 26 of the Act, 1951 and the Civil Court proceeded therein and exercised the power as provided under section 27 of the Act, 1951 but here, order of Registrar, according to Shri Agrawal is without jurisdiction. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the decisions reported in 1971 JLJ SN 135- Dalludas v. Registrar of Public Trusts, Hoshangabad and 1972 JLJ SN 6 - Sheoprasad Dubey v. Registrar, Public Trusts, Sagar and others and submitted that in view of the aforesaid, the petition deserves to be allowed and the order of Registrar to the extent of direction issued by him is liable to be set aside.

4. Reply has been filed on behalf the respondents justifying the order passed by the Registrar pointing out that petitioner has also filed a petition on earlier occasion, therefore, for the same cause of action, this petition is not maintainable. They have also pointed out that since certain irregularities were noticed by the Registrar and, therefore, whatever direction issued by the authority, can be issued even under section 22 of the Act, 1951. They have also stated in the reply that the power exercised by the authority as a Registrar, Public Trusts is proper for the reason that though there is no specific notification but under the Work Distribution Order, Collector has assigned the work of Registrar Public Trusts and as such, the order passed by the Registrar cannot be said to be without competence merely because there was no specific notification issued by the State Government notifying him as the Registrar, Public Trusts.

5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, since the challenge is confining to the extent that though the authority which had passed the order under the capacity of Registrar, Public Trusts i.e. Sub Divisional Officer but not notified as the Registrar, Public Trusts by the State Government, therefore, he cannot perform such a function and the order passed by him is without jurisdiction. Although, this can be answered by the State Government whether he is notified authority or not but in the reply submitted by the respondents, they have taken a stand that the Sub Divisional Officer has been assigned the work of Registrar, Public Trusts by the Collector under an order of work distribution and, therefore, the same can be done by the said authority and that authority can perform the function of Registrar, Public Trusts. According to counsel for the State, there is nothing illegal in it. However, I am not satisfied with the stand taken by the State for the reason that the Registrar has been defined under section 3 of the Act, 1951 which reads as under:-

“3. Registrar of public trusts. (1) The Collector shall be the Registrar of Public Trusts in respect of every public trust the principal office or t