JAGDISH SHARAN SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal takes exception to the decision of the learned Single Judge dt. 26/2/2013 in W.P.No. 621/12 whereby the Writ Petition filed by the appellant for setting aside the decision of the Registrar of including new names as trustees being bad in law for want of personal notices given to the existing trustees. The learned single Judge has considered this grievance of the appellant and has found as of fact that public notice was issued by the Registrar and after following the necessary procedure for enquiry the impugned decision has been taken by the Registrar which cannot be faulted. The learned single Judge has additionally opined that in any case the appellant has alternative remedy by way of civil suit u/S. 8 of the MP Public Trust Act, 1951. The fact that public notice was issued by the Registrar is manifest from document Annexure P/11 at page 52. It is mentioned in the document that the notice was pasted on the notice Board. There is no averment in the Writ petition that such notice was not displayed on the notice board. Inspite of public notice having been displayed by the Registrar, however, the appellant chose not to raise any objection. It is too late in the day for the appellant to now question the correctness of the decision of the Registrar on this technical argument. In any case, in law, there is no requirement of issuing personal notices to all the trustees. The mode of notice to be issued can be discerned from Sec.5 of the Act which provides for public notice and displaying such notices on the notice board is one such mode permisible. The Registrar having followed that procedure cannot be faulted with the final decision taken after due enquiry.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Kasliwal and others Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2013 2 MPLJ 283. That decision will be of no avail to the appellant. Moreover, the decision is based on the facts of that case wherein the Registrar proceeded to pass order to "remove these Trustees" without issuing formal notice to them in that behalf. In the present case, the appellant has not been removed as trustee whilst recording change. The change is in respect of new trustees empaneled by the order of the Registrar. In one sense, this order cannot be considered as directly prejudicial to the appellant which would necessitate issuing of personal notice to the appellant before taking any final decision by the Registrar. Taking any view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere. The appellant is free to question the decision of the Registrar by way of Civil Suit as provided u/S. 8 of the Act of 1951, if so advised. That proceedings will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law except the finding recorded by this Court in the present writ proceedings.

(3.) At this stage, counsel for the appellant submit that the appellant had raised objection before the Registrar. However, the document which is relied upon was, admittedly, not filed before the Registrar before he had taken the final decision in the proceedings for recording change. Accordingly, even this argument does not commend to us.