PRAVEEN MALPANI Vs. MAHENDRA SINGH GADWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under Section 24(4) of the M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951 (in short "the Trust Act ") assails the judgment dated 23.09.2009, passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.11/20-2009.

(2.) The arguments advanced in this appeal are within narrow compass. The parties are at loggerheads on the question of competence of the authority who has passed the order dated 1.06.2009 (Annexure-A/11). The officer who has passed the said order dated 01.06.2009 has exercised his power flowing from Sub- section (2) of Section 23 of the Trust Act. Aggrieved by this order, the appellants preferred appeal before the learned Additional District Judge. The singular point advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the "Registrar" is defined under Section 2(6) of the Trust Act. Section 3 of the Turst Act makes it clear that the Collector shall be the Registrar of the Public Trust in all respect. However, the Registrar/Collector can delegate his power to another authority in consonance with Section 34-A of the Trust Act. The sole ground of attack to the order dated 01.06.2009 is that there was no valid delegation of power which empowered the authority to pass the order dated 01.06.2009. To elaborate, Mr. Sanghi placed reliance on the reply of the respondent No.2 dated 24.08.2009. It is submitted that in view of this reply filed before lower appellate Court, it is crystal clear that the delegation of power was based on a work distribution order dated 20.10.2008, filed alongwith this reply. A plain reading of this work distribution order shows that the said memo of distribution, distributes the administrative work amongst various revenue officers, but by such delegation, power to act as a Registrar cannot be delegated. Mr. Sanghi criticized the impugned judgment by contending that the Court below without dealing with the legal position and the judgment of this Court reported in 1972 MPLJ 206 [Shri Deo Parasnathji Mousuma Ghanshyam Budhu Singhai vs. Firm Kanhaiyalal Komalchand Godre] accepted the work distribution order as a valid delegation of power under Section 34-A of the Trust Act. By placing reliance on various subsequent judgments, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the exercise of power on the strength of such distribution of memo cannot be allowed. Putting it differently, learned counsel for the appellants contended that there has to be an order in writing by the Registrar after due application of mind for the purpose of delegation under Section 34-A of the Trust Act. There exits a difference between the order of distribution of statutory function and the administrative power of allocation of business to all the officers. The Court below has erred in not examining these aspects and has further erred in not following the said judgment of this Court.

(3.) Per-contra, Mr. Rahul Mishra, learned G.A. supported the impugned order and submits that the work was duly allotted to the officer who has passed the order dated 01.06.2009, which was subject matter of challenge in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge. As per the work distribution memo, the delegation of power is permissible. Reliance is placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1969 MPLJ 680 [Umedi Bhai & others vs. The Collector, Sehore & others].