IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Agarwal, J.
Public Trust Shri Ramjanki (Kanoongo) v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No. 1505 of 2018 (Gwalior); Decided on 3.1.2018.
(1) Civil P.C. 1908 -- O.22 R.3 -- Public Trusts Act, 1951 (M.P.) -- S.25(1) -- Constitution of India -- Arts. 226 and 227 -- death of petitioner President of Public Trust -- without mandatory compliance of provisions of section 25(1) of Act -- Gopal Shrivastava appointed as trustee and President of Trust by working trustees -- such appointment of Gopal Shrivastava is not valid in eye of law -- application for substitution of name of present President is not maintainable -- same dismissed. [Para 7
(2) Public Trusts Act, 1951 (M.P.) -- S. 25(1) -- validity of appointment of President of Trust -- death of President of Public Trust -- without mandatory compliance of provisions of section 25(1) -- working trustees appointed to Gopal Shrivastava as trustee and President of Trust -- such appointment of President of Trust is not valid in eyes of law. [Para 7
(3) Constitutionof India -- Arts. 226 anmd 227 -- M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 -- Ss. 2(1), 22, 23 and 24 -- writ petition against order of Registrar of Public Trust -- maintainability of -- alternative remedy of appeal available under section 24 of Act -- petition is not maintainable -- petition dismissed. [Para 11
(4) Public Trusts Act, 1951 (M.P.) -- Ss. 2(1), 22, 23 and 24 -- order passed by Registrar of Public Trust under sections 22 and 23 -- remedy against it is appeal under section 24 of Act and not writ petition. [Para 11
1. Heard on I.A.No.6317/2015, an application for substitution of the name of the present President on account of the death of Shri Harihar Sahay, who allegedly died on 5.8.2015.
2. This application has been opposed by the respondents No.3 and 4 by filing their specific reply and it is submitted that no trust could have been created in relation to aukaf property in terms of the provisions contained in section 36 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Act of 1951') and, therefore, such application is not maintainable.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Mandir Shri Ramjanki (Kanoongo) is being maintained by the Kayasth Community since time immemorial and a trust has also been authorized by the said community, which is registered as public trust. It is submitted that after death of the President Shri Harihar Sahay who died on 5.8.2015, a meeting of the Trust was held on 17.8.2015 and in the aforesaid meeting the President namely Shri Gopal Shrivastava s/o Shri Jwala Prasad Shrivastava, was appointed as President of the said Trust and also authorized some resolution by the Trust to contest the present case and, therefore, his name be substituted in place of the name of the present President.
4. Learned counsel for the State as well as other respondents opposed such substitution.
5. It is apparent from the provisions contained in section 25(1) of the Act of 1951 that where a public trust is under the management of a Board of Trustees, the working trustee shall, as soon as a vacancy occurs in the Board, inform the Registrar of such vacancy and the time within and the manner in which he proposes to fill the same.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that no such intimation was given to the Registrar about occurrence of a vacancy of death of Shri Harihar Sahay, who has filed this petition.
7. Thus, it is apparent that without mandatory compliance of provisions contained in section 25(1) of the Act of 1951, no vacancy could have been filled up by the working trustees by appointing Shri Gopal Shrivastava as a trustee and President in the meeting held on 17.8.2015 and, therefore, appointment of Shri Gopal Shrivastava is not valid in the eyes of law. Therefore, this application for substitution of the name of the present President is not maintainable in view of the mandatory provisions contained in section 25 of the Act of 1951 and thus, the application deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed.
8. Heard on writ petition.
9. Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 12.3.2010 passed by the SDO (Revenue), Gohad, District Bhind in exercise of powers conferred on him as Registrar of Public Trust alleging that the Registrar of Public Trust has exceeded his jurisdiction and by issuing the order Annexure P-1 the Registrar has demonstrated his intention to create a trust and no opportunity of hearing was furnished to the real trustees of the Public Trust namely Shri Ramjanki (Kanoongo) Mandir, and only took into account the conviction of Shri Sanjay Shrivastava, who was appointed for a short period as President of the Trust.
10. It is further submitted that since there is a condition in the bylaws of the trust that a convicted person cannot remain the trustee and least the President of the Trust, therefore, as soon as Shri Sanjay Shrivastava was convicted, Shri Harihar Sahay was appointed as trustee and this aspect has not been taken into consideration by the Registrar of Public Trust. It is also submitted that order of Registrar is without jurisdiction and against the principal of natural justice, inasmuch as the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In this background, it is submitted that the Court may be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 12.3.2010 passed by SDO (Revenue), Gohad.
11. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State submits
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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.