Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Rambai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 March, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
Writ Petition No.7621 of 2025
SMT RAMBAI AND OTHERS
Vs.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
APPERANCE
Shri Shri MPS Raghuwanshi - Senior Advocate alongwith Shri
Sarvesh Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Deepak Khot - Government Advocate for the State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 03/03/2025
Delivered on : 7/3/2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, the Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind
Ramesh Phadke pronounced/passed the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.02.2024 passed
by Sub-Divisional Officer cum Registrar, Public Trust, District Laskhar,
Gwalior whereby he has approved change in constitution of the trust
board in exercise of power under the provisions of Section 9 of the M.P.
Public Trust Act, 1951.
2. On 31.05.1993, the Registrar, Public Trust, Gwalior passed the
order constituting a trust in respect of "Shri Ram Thakur Ji Mandir'' and
also appointed "Trustees", exercising his powers under the provisions
of M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 and by subsequent order dated
31.01.2024, the Sub-Divisional Officer cum Registrar, Public Trust,
District Laskhar, Gwalior after examining the records had made
changes in the Register in respect of entries concerning the names of
Trustees earlier appointed in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the
Act of 1957. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present
petition has been filed.
3. Shri MPS Raghuwanshi - learned Senior Counsel alongwith Shri
Sarvesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued
before this Court that the impugned order herein passed by the
respondent No.3 is contrary to the principles of natural justice, as the
said order has been passed without impleading the petitioners as party
and without giving any opportunity of hearing them, thus, the
impugned order being de-hors the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 the
Act is in excess of the jurisdiction warranting interference by this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, so also since the
provisions of Section 9 have not been followed by the Registrar, the
petitioner is not enjoined to prefer the civil suit and can straight away
prefer this writ petition.
4. While placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in the matter of Dalludas Vs. Registrar of Public
Trusts, Hoshangabad, reported in 1970 JLJ SN 135, it was submitted
that there is no power in the Act under which the Registrar can remove
an existing trustee and appoint another by his own order.
5. It was further submitted that order could have been passed under
Section 9 only upon an application being made by the working trustees
which has not been done and the Registrar was required to make an
enquiry which also has not been done and also was required to record a
finding that he was satisfied that change has occurred or is necessary
for any of the entry recorded in the Register, as quasi-judicial authority
must record reasons in support of the order it makes which has not been
done in the present matter.
6. It was further submitted that in the event of non-compliance of
any of the conditions precedent for exercise of jurisdiction thereunder
by the authority concerned, any order rendered in exercise of the
powers conferred in the relevant provisions of the Act must be deemed
to be without jurisdiction and, therefore, nothing but nullity, as such
order would be stillborn and ineffective and a public functionary
invested with power and jurisdiction to deal with civil rights must act
strictly in accordance with the requirements of the statutory provisions
and any decision rendered by such authority overlooking and ignoring
statutory requirement and requisite legal criteria would be void.
7. Shri Deepak Khot - learned Government Advocate for the State
who is on advance copy submits that against the impugned order
herein, the petitioner has the remedy of preferring a civil suit before the
Civil Court as per Sub-section (3) of Section 9 which provides that the
provisions of Section 8 i.e. for preferring civil suit against finding of
the Registrar shall apply to any finding under the Section. It was, thus,
submitted that the present petition being not maintainable deserves to
be dismissed.
8. Heard.
9. Sub-sections (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (9) of Section 2 of the Act
of 1951 defines terms "Prescribed", "Public Trust", "Register",
"Registrar", "Trustee and Working Trustee Rules are made under the
Act to prescribe "Matters to be dealt with under the Act, among others,
can be subject matter of an express or constructive trust for public,
religious or charitable purpose", to be so registered under to the Act. As
per Section 3(2), a "Register" is required to be maintained by the
"Registrar of Public Trusts. A "trustee" is a person in whom "either
alone or in association with other person, the trust property is vested
and includes a manager". The "Working Trustee means any person
"who for the time being either alone or in association with some other
person or persons administers the trust property As per sub-section
4(1). "the working trustee of every public trust shall apply to the
Registrar having Jurisdiction for the registration of the public trust and
the information to be given in relation to such a public trust are
mentioned in sub-section (3). Either on receipt of an application under
Section 4 or on his own motion, the Registrar is required to make an
enquiry "in the prescribed manner for the purpose of ascertaining facts
enumerated in sub-clauses (1) to (viii) as per Section 5(1) and sub-
section (2) requires that the Registrar "shall give in the prescribed
manner public notice of the inquiry proposed to be made under sub-
section (1) and invite all persons interested in the public trust under
inquiry to prefer objections". (Emphasis added). On completion of the
inquiry under section 5, the Registrar is required under Section 6 to
"record his findings with reasons therefor as to the matters mentioned in
the said section".
10. This Court proposes to quote now relevant portions from the next
three sections:-
"7. Registrar to make entries in the Register. (1) The
Registrar shall cause entries to be made in the
Register in accordance with the findings recorded by
him under section 6 and shall publish on the notice
board of his office the entries made in the register.
(2) The entries so made shall, subject to the
provisions of this Act and subject to any change
recorded under any provision of this Act or a rule
made thereunder, be final and conclusive.
"8. Civil suit against the finding of the Registrar.
(1) Any working trustee or person having interest in a
public trust or any property found to be trust
property, aggrieved by any finding of the Registrar
under Section 6 may, within six months from the date
of the publication of the notice under sub-section (1)
of Section 7, institute a suit in a Civil Court to have
such finding set aside or modified.
(2) In every such suit, the Civil Court shall give
notice to the State Government through the Registrar,
and the State Government, if it so desires, shall be
made a party to the suit.
(3) On the final decision of the suit, the Registrar
shall, if necessary, correct the entries made in the
register in accordance with such decision.
9. Change.
(1)Where any change occurs in any of the entries
recorded in the register, the working trustee shall,
within ninety days from the date of the occurrence of
such change or where any change is desired in such
entries in the interest of the administration of the
such public trust, report in the prescribed manner
such change or proposed change to the Registrar.
(2) If, on receipt of such report and after making such
enquiry' as the Registrar may consider necessary, the
Registrar is satisfied that a change has occurred or is
necessary in any of the entries recorded in the
register in regard to a particular public trust, he shall
record a finding with the reason therefor and subject
to the provisions contained in sub-section (3) amend
the entries in the said register in accordance with
such finding
(3) The provisions of Section 8 shall apply to any
finding under this section as they apply to a finding
under Section 6."
11. The conspectus of the provisions aforesaid brings out in bold
relief the totality of Registrar's competence in the matter of registration
or declaration or legal constitution, for that matter, of a "public trust"
under the Act. The extent of his powers in the matter of registration of
the public trust and the conditions precedent for exercise of those
powers are also clearly laid down. If the Registrar acts on an
application under Section 4(1), to hold inquiry contemplated under
Section 5, he has to be satisfied that the applicant was the "working
trustee and when he acts suo motu under Section 5(1), he has still to
make an inquiry contemplated thereunder in the "prescribed manner"
and for making such an inquiry, he is required to give "in the prescribed
manner public notice of the inquiry proposed". The "findings" which
the Registrar is required to record "with reasons" are with respect to
matters such as names and addresses of the trustees and the Manager of
the trust and the mode of succession to Office of trustees of such trust
which are enumerated in clauses (iv) and (v) of Section 5(1) and are
also stated in Clauses (iii) and (iv) of Section 4(3). The Registrar has to
make entry in respect thereof in the "Register in accordance with such
findings and as per Section 7(2) the entries are regarded as "final and
conclusive" albeit "subject to any change recorded under any provision
of the Act or rules made thereunder.
12. In the impugned order, the Registrar has specifically recorded
that upon perusal of the written argument/reply of the parties and of the
objector i.e. the petitioner, he has reached to a conclusion to the effect
that the amendment which has been sought for in the board of the trust
is in accordance with the provisions of Section 9(1)(2) of the Act, 1951.
Thus categoric satisfaction has been recorded by him that change as
contemplated under Section 9 has occurred. The same is definitely a
finding recorded by the Registrar and as per sub Section (3) of Section
9 against such a finding, in view of Section 8, a civil suit can certainly
be preferred before the Civil Court for challenging the same. All the
grounds as have been raised by the petitioners in this petition as regards
procedure which is required to be followed under Section 9 and which
has allegedly not been followed can very well be taken by him before
the Civil Court.
13. Thus in view of the aforesaid, since the petitioner has the remedy
of preferring a civil suit before the Civil Court in terms of Section 8/9
of the Act, 1951, I don't deem it to be a fit case for entertaining this writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently,
admission is declined. The petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the
petitioner to avail the remedy as provided under the law.
(Milind Ramesh Phadke)
Judge
PAWAN
pwn*
KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=b864d1ab4ace2215bfcf3ab301c34d631287f1b1cdd90b4a49f265f
02d9d593f, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=61B9D129971D2EA4FD4455ED49EA436EA65E26164BEEED8
9153191C56E98CE21, cn=PAWAN KUMAR
Date: 2025.03.07 16:34:38 +05'30'
