Laxmichand Modi vs B.R. Mandal

K.L. Pandey, J.—This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against the three orders of the Registrar of Public Trusts, Sagar dated 14 June 1961, 15 November 1961 and 5 December 1961.

The facts of this case may be briefly stated. Shri Deo Adinathji Jain Mandir Kalu Malai, Sagar, is a registered Public Trust of which the petitioner is, as shown in the register, the sole trustee. On 21 March 1961, the respondent passed an order u/s 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Trusts Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) by which the registrar sanctioned the sale of one of the houses belonging to the Trust on the following terms and conditions:

(i) That the sale which should be by public auction is duty advertised in the press local and outside one month in advance.

(ii) That the property now valued at Rs.7,600-be not auctioned below Rs. 10,000.

(iii) That the proceeds be invented in Government securities until such time as the full details of the reconstruction programme of the Gandhi Chouk property are not fully worked out and the approval of the Registrar is not secured to the detailed plans and estimates there of so as to ensure a guaranteed income of Rs. 1,800 p.a. from it. In pursuance of the sanction the house was advertised for sale. Thereupon, some persons, who claimed to be trustees of the Trust, made an application to the Registrar to say that the house should not be sold by public auction. They also sought his permission to repair that house. On this application the Registrar commenced an enquiry to ascertain whether there were other trustees. On 14 June 1961 he stayed and kept in abeyance his order dated 21 March 1961. On 15 November 1961 he directed the parties to produce estimates for repairs prepared by persons qualified to do so. On 5 December 1961 he directed the petitioner to deposit the trust fund in the State Bank of India and asked him to submit the estimates previously ordered. The petitioner challenges the three orders dated 14 June 1961, 15 November 1961 and 5 December 1961.

Having heard the counsel we have formed the opinion that this petition must be allowed for two very obvious reasons. In the first place, after the Registrar accorded sanction u/s 14 of the Act to the proposed sale of the house, he became functus officio and had no jurisdiction either to recall or to review the sanction given by him. The Registrar could not also restrain the petitioner from taking steps to sell the house pursuance to the aforesaid sanction, nor could the Registrar initiate any proceedings calculated to jettison the sanction. Secondly, the trust having been duly registered and entries having been made in the registrar, it is not open to the Registrar to entertain the claims of other persons not shown in the register to be trustees of the Trust If those persons were aggrieved they had to bring a suit u/s 8 of the Act. In the absence of such a suit the entries in the register must be regarded as final and conclusive u/s 7 (2) of the Act. In view of that position it is not open to anyone, and the least of all to the Registrar, to contend that the entries were neither final nor conclusive, and that they did not inhibit a further enquiry in to the question whether there were other trustees. In our opinion the Registrar had no jurisdiction to hold any enquiry for that purpose.

The learned Government Advocate relied upon section 26 of the Act to justify the enquiry undertaken by the Registrar. In the first place, the Registrar did not purport to act under that section. Secondly, even if he could be regarded as doing so, he had, for the purposes mentioned in section 26, no jurisdiction to pass any of the three impugned orders which were wholly outside the purview of that section.

The result is that the petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders dated 14 June 1961, 15 November 1961 and 5 December 1961 are quashed. In the circumstances of case there will no order about costs. The security amount shall be refunded.