V V DRAVID Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against an order passed by Seventh Addl. District Judge, Indore, dt. 5-5-1980.

(2.) The non-applicant No. 2 claiming to be a trustee of Gandhi Mazdoor Smarak Nidhi submitted an application to the Registrar of Public Trusts. This application was submitted on 16th May 1979 and the non-applicant No. 2 sought a relief of permission to file appropriate proceedings against the Chairman, the present petitioner. The Registrar of the Public Trusts issued a notice to the Chairman (the petitioner) and after the reply was filed by him. the Registrar without further enquiry into the matter, sent the file to the court of District Judge for suitable action. On receiving these papers, the learned Additional District Judge issued notices to all the parties and also to the Registrar and thereafter passed the impugned order sending the matter to one Shri N. B. Sirpurkar, Advocate for recording evidence as he may think necessary. It is against this order that the present petition is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Under Section 26 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, it was open to the Registrar, Public Trusts, after enquiry either to file an application himself before a competent court or to direct the concerned person to file an application but he had no jurisdiction or authority to send the case and its file to the court of District Judge and the court of District Judge (Additional District Judge) could not have taken cognisance of such file if sent by the Registrar without any application made by the Registrar. It was further contended that the learned Additional District Judge having taken cognisance of the matter, which he could not have, instead of further enquiring into the matter, himself which was his function, left it to the Commissioner and directed him that he may, if he so thinks, examine witnesses and thereby again committed material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction. The learned counsel contended that all these proceedings are without Jurisdiction and cannot be allowed to remain.