SUSHIL KUMAR KASLIWAL Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common order shall dispose of the aforesaid two writ appeals one writ appeal by appellant Sushil Kumar Kasliwal and another W.A.No.306/2012 filed by one Deepak Kasliwal. Both these writ appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court delivered in W.P.No.676/2012, whereby the learned Single Judge has set aside the order passed by the Registrar Public Trust, Indore dated 31.12.2012 and has given the following directions:-

(2.) The appellants are the new trustees of Seth Trilokchand Kalyanmalji Digambar Jain Parmarthik Sansthayen (Trust) which is Trust registered under the Public Trust Act. The writ petitioners who are now appellants in W.A.No.273/2012 were acting trustees of the public trust and in fact were removed from the trusteeship vide resolution passed by the Board of Trustees in a meeting held on 06.11.2011. In the said meeting, while Shri Ashok Kumar Kasliwal and Dileep Kumar Kasliwal were removed from the Board of trustees, Shri Sushil Kumar Kasliwal, Veer Kumar Jain and Deepak Kasliwal were inducted as new trustees. The new trustees then filed an application before the Registrar Public Trust in Form-6 to bring on record the changes so brought in the trusteeship of the Public Trust with a prayer to record these entries in the record of the Registrar of Public Trust under the provisions of M.P.Public Trust Act.

(3.) Against the decision of the Registrar Public Trust, the removed trustees i.e. Ashok Kumar Kasliwal and Dileep Kumar Kasliwal (hereinafter referred to as writ petitioners) alongwith the Public Trust filed the writ petition registered as W.P.No.676/2012 assailing the order of the Registrar, Public Trust. They were aggrieved of the changes in the trusteeship of the aforesaid Trust vide resolution passed on 6.11.2011(which is alleged to be unauthorised). The petitioners no.1 and 2 were removed from the trusteeship of the Trust while respondents no.3 and 4 i.e. Deepak Kasliwal and Ravi Gangwal were inducted new trustees. It was the submission of the writ petitioners that this was done by the registrar at their back without giving them any notice of hearing and without holding a proper enquiry as is contemplated by Section 9(2) of the M.P.Public Trust Act.