Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sushil Kumar Singh Kasliwal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 February, 2018
1
ANNEXURE-C
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur
Bench at Indore, Indore
CONTINUATION ORDER SHEET
Writ Appeal No.1273/2017
(Sushil Kumar Singh Kasliwal s/o Late Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh Kasliwal
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh & another)
Indore, Dated 02.02.2018
Shri Ravindra Singh Chhabra, learned counsel for
the appellant / writ petitioner.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned Government
Advocate for respondent No.1 / State of Madhya
Pradesh.
Shri A.S. Garg, learned Senior Counsel with Shri
Satish Jain, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and
3.
Heard on the question of admission.
ORDER
This intra court appeal under Section 2 of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyalayaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed by the appellant against order dated 16.11.2017 (Annexure A/4) passed in Writ Petition No.247/2016, by which prayer for quashment of order dated 19.11.2015 passed by respondent No.1 (Registrar, Public Trusts, Indore), has been dismissed by observing that remedy of filing a civil suit under Section 9 (3) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 is always available to the writ 2 petitioner.
2. The appellant / writ petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed this intra Court appeal on the ground that he was appointed on 05.01.1982 as a Trustee of Trust (Seth Trilokchand Kalyanmalji Digamber Jain Parmarthik Sanstha). Thereafter, on 09.03.1983, he was appointed as Honorary Secretary of the Trust by consensus. Trusty Ashok Kumar Kasliwal died on 22.01.2015. After his death, the appellant filed an application under Section 9 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act, 1951 (herein after referred to as the Act), seeking change in the entries recorded in the Register by the Registrar, Public Trusts, Indore. The Registrar, Public Trusts, Indore has recorded finding that the appellant is not registered as a working Trustee in the Register maintained by the Registrar, therefore, he has no locus standi to maintain the said application under Section 9 (1) of the Act and accordingly, rejected the same.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Registrar, Public Trusts, Indore has not correctly recorded the finding, as documents placed on record speak that in the proceedings initiated by the Trust before the Registrar, Public Trusts, Indore under Section 26 of the Act, the appellant has been arrayed as one of the Trustees, and therefore, there is apparent 3 perversity in the findings so recorded and hence, the same deserves to be set aside.
4. He further submitted that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the appellant before passing the order dated 19.11.2015, and therefore, there was no occasion to the appellant to point out about the facts regarding his appointment as Trustee of the Trust on 05.01.1982 and since then he was working as Honorary Secretary of the Trust.
5. He has also drawn our attention to page No.59 of the writ appeal, order dated 28.01.2013 passed in Writ Appeal No.273/2012 by a coordinate bench of this Court, page No.169 of the writ appeal, whereby in paragraph No.4, it has been stated that proposal of appointment of Shri Sushil Kumar Ji Kasliwal as Trustee has been unanimously approved by the Trust and he was appointed as such, and thus, he was working since then as a Trustee of the Trust.
6. On the other hand, Shri A.S. Garg, learned Senior Counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has drawn our attention to Sub Section (1) of Section 9 of the Act and Sub Section (3) of Section 9 of the Act; and submitted that Register, which is maintained by the Registrar, Public Trust, Indore, no name of the present appellant was there, nor his name is recorded as a Trustee of the Trust, and therefore, the learned Registrar, Public 4 Trusts, Indore has not committee any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order and rejecting his application. If the appellant is aggrieved by the aforesaid action, he can file a civil suit under Section 9 (3) of the Act and the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be allowed to be availed to decide the legality, validity and propriety of the order passed by the Registrar, Public Trusts, Indore while deciding application under Section 9 (1) of the Act; and prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal.
7. From perusal of order dated 19.11.2015, it is not in dispute that the appellant has not been found to be a working Trustee of the Trust, upon verification of the facts of the Register maintained by the Registrar, Public Trusts. Therefore, he has rightly not been found to have any locus standi to maintain the application. The order passed by the Registrar, Public Trusts, Indore is well within the writ jurisdiction and the order so passed is impregnable either in law or on facts.
8. The learned Writ Court while deciding the writ petition gave findings at page 190 of the writ appeal, which read, as under: -
"As per the scheme of Section 9 (1) of the Public Trusts Act, 1951, the Registrar of Public Trust at the instance of working trustee can bring any change in the register 5 maintained by him.
From the record of the case there is no clinching and conclusive evidence showing the petitioner as a working trustee of the Trust registered in the register maintained by Registrar. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the Registrar on the aforesaid jurisdictional fact questioning the locus-standi of the petitioner cannot be faulted. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has not been heard as he has participated in the proceedings. Moreover, in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.306/2012 decided on 28.01.2013, the remedy of filing the Civil Suit under Section 9 (3) of the Act of 1951, is always available to the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid, though this Court declines to interfere in the order impugned but reserve liberty to either party as regards the merits of the order impugned passed by the Registrar, Public Trusts, Indore, to assail before the appropriate forum, on such facts and in law available to both the parties.
It is made clear that any observations made in the order is for the purpose of disposal of writ petition and shall have no bearing on merits of the case.
With the aforesaid liberty, the present writ petition stands disposed of."
9. On due consideration of the aforesaid, and the provisions of Section 9 (1) and 9 (3) of the Act, we are of the view that in the Register maintained by respondent No.1, the Registrar, Public Trusts, Indore, has not committed any legal error, as name of the appellant has not been found in the Register maintained by the Registrar, Public Trusts, Indore, and thus, he can avail remedy by filing a civil suit wherein the learned trial Court, after recording the evidence of both the parties, decide the matter on merits, in accordance with law.
10. No case to interfere with the impugned order, as 6 prayed for, is made out.
11. Accordingly, Writ Appeal No.1273/2017 has no merit and is hereby dismissed.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
Pithawe RC
Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithwe
DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh, ou=Administration, Ramesh Chandra Pithwe postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=5657c7dcce52095b400cf9f273e8b1cd636bdbf86f330909bb87923ad ec1e27a, cn=Ramesh Chandra Pithwe Date: 2018.02.08 17:30:43 +05'30'