Saurabh & another Versus State of M.P. & Ors
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)
WRIT PETITION, 26947 of 2021, Judgment Date: Jan 12, 2022
Law laid down -
M.P.Public Trusts Act, 1951.
1. The question which is posed in the present petition is that whether the Registrar Public Trust can pass an order of such a nature removing two trustees and directing the trust to conduct the election by appointing two new trustees. (Para-9).
2. A perusal of the provisions i.e. S.22,25 & 26 of the Act, it clearly reveal that if the vacancies have occurred in the Board, it can be filled through the procedure as provided under Section 25 of the Act, but in the present case admittedly the trustees were appointed by the Trust itself and it appears that no such intimation was given by the Board of trustees to the Registrar Public Trust which has led to removal of the two trustees by the Registrar himself. In the considered opinion of this court, no such discretion is available to the Registrar to remove the Trustees and to direct the trust to conduct the election by appointing two new trustees. (Para-12).
3. The dispute between the parties in the aforesaid public trust is in respect of its administration only, and for which the directions ought to have been sought from the District Judge as provided under Section 26 of the Act. Thus, the Registrar Public Trust, Barwani has clearly acted in excess of his jurisdiction to pass the impugned order which cannot be countenanced in the eyes of law. (Para-13).
4. In the case of Shri Shri 1008 Kunwar Raj Rajeshwai Hindayla Darbar (supra), wherein it is held that a public trust is not a juristic person and that the petition filed by the Public Trust is not maintainable. The said case is also distinguishable as admittedly the case on hand has also been filed by Sourabh Patodi, who is also one of the trustees as also by the Trust through its authorized trustee Sourabh Patodi. And since the Trust is a Public Trust, discharging public function, in the considered opinion of this court, a writ would be maintainable regarding its functioning by any person who can show that he has any interest in the affairs of the Trust and the infringement of his legal rights under the Act of 1951. Thus, in such circumstances, non joiner of all the Trustees would not render the petition untenable. (Para 15).
Saurabh & another Versus State of M.P. & Ors