KAILASHANAND Vs. REWARAM GIRDHARILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing an order passed by the Registrar of Public Trusts, Hoshangabad, on 18th July 1963 holding that an application filed by the opponents Nos. 1 to 5, under section 26 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was maintainable, and 6xing a date for a hearing of the submissions of the parties on that application.

(2.) THE material facts are that in 1952 the petitioner, claiming himself to be the trustee and manager of "Gokarneshwar Mahadeo" temple situated in Kharkhedi, made an application for registration of the temple as a public trust under the Act. This application was sent by the Registrar to the Sub-Divisional Officer for enquiry and report, but no order of any kind was made thereon after an enquiry in conformity with sections 5 and 6 of the Act. On 24th August 1959 the non-applicants Nos. 1 to 5 made an application under section 26 of the Act before the Registrar for removal of the petitioner from the managership and trusteeship of the temple. This application was sent by the Registrar to the Sub-Divisional Officer for enquiry and report. THE Sub-Divisional Officer reported that there was no entry in the register of public trusts as regards the temple in question having been declared and registered as a public trust. When the matter was taken up for hearing by the Registrar on receipt of the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioner raised the objection that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to entertain any application under section 26 of the Act unless and until the temple was first found a public trust after an enquiry in accordance with sections 5 and 6 of the Act, and then registered as a public trust under the Act. THE Registrar also found that there was no entry in the register of public trusts about the temple having been declared, and registered, as a public trust. He, however, came to the conclusion that on the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer it was evident that the temple was a public trust, that the non-registration of the temple as a public trust did not alter its character as a public trust, and that the registration of the temple as a public trust was a mere formality which could be completed at any time. After making these observations, he accepted the recommendation of the Sub-Divisional Officer that the temple should be registered as a public trust. On this view the Registrar held that the aforesaid non-applicants' application under section 26 of the Act was maintainable.

(3.) FOR these reasons, this petition is allowed and the order passed on 18th July 1963 by the Registrar holding that the said non-applicants' petition under section 26 of the Act was maintainable is quashed. It is needless to add that as the application filed in 1952 by the petitioner for registration of the trust still remains undisposed of, the Registrar must enquire into that application and decide it in conformity with sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Act. The petitioner's stand now is that the temple is not a public trust. Whether this position is tenable or untenable can be decided only by the Registrar in an enquiry that may be held under section 5 of the Act. The petitioner shall have costs of this application from the respondents Nos. 1 to 5. Counsel's fee is fixed at Rs. 75. The outstanding amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.