Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak Kasliwal vs Registrar Public Trust Indore on 9 January, 2018
Alok
Digitally signed by Alok Gargav
DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya
Pradesh, ou=Administration,
postalCode=452001, st=Madhya
Pradesh,
Gargav
2.5.4.20=10ffc095e99ebde5fcd7c3
f1f517fd958a070f17607a9a6db30
71d4a39e9cb81, cn=Alok Gargav
Date: 2018.01.17 14:43:57 +05'30'
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 18661/2017
1 Deepak Kasliwal Vs. Registrar Public Trust & others
Indore, dated : 09.01.2018
Petitioner - Deepak Kasliwal in person.
Shri A.S. Garg, learned Senior Advocate with
Shri G.S. Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 23.5.2014 passed by Registrar, Public Trust, Indore by which he has directed to record the name of Aniruddh Kasliwal as Trustee of respondent No.2 Trust.
2. "Seth Trilokchand Kalyanmalji Digambar Jain Parmarthik Sansthayen" is a charitable Trust established in 1922 and later on registered under the provisions of M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951 (hereinafter, for short, 'the Act of 1951') having its Registration No.51/1973. According to the petitioner, said Trust was established by his great great grand father Late Shri Kalyanmalji. As per the Trust-deed, none of the promoter/descendant can claim any right in the said Trust.
3. The petitioner has alleged that on 12.11.2013, the respondent No.2 Trust in its fraudulent meeting, in which all the Trustees were not present, inducted respondent No.3 - Aniruddha Kasliwal as a new Trustee against vacant post. Thereafter on 27.12.2013, a resolution was passed and an THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 18661/2017 2 Deepak Kasliwal Vs. Registrar Public Trust & others application was filed before the Registrar, Public Trust to include the name of respondent No.3 as Trustee of the Trust. The Registrar has registered the said application u/s. 9 of the Act of 1951 as Case No.48/B/113/13-14 on 8.1.2014. On 15.1.2014, Late Shri Ashok Kumar Kasliwal challenged the order dated 21.10.2013 claiming himself to be President of the Trust by filing 6 cases u/s. 26 of the Act of 1951 before the District Judge, in which 3 cases are in respect of appointment of new Trustees being Jitendra Jain, Nitin Kasliwal and Rajiv Chhabra. The respondent No.1 was having knowledge that the dispute pertaining to appointment of new Trustees is already subjudice before the District Judge and he has already passed the impugned order dated 23.5.2014, despite that, he has directed the name of Aniruddha Kasliwal to be directed as a new Trustee.
4. The petitioner filed W.P. No.13533/2013 against the order dated 21.10.2013 which was disposed of vide order dated 11.12.2013 by the Writ Court on the ground that the he is having alternate efficacious remedy to file a civil suit. Thereafter, present petitioner filed W.A. No.55/2014 which was also dismissed vide order dated 28.1.2014. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Civil Suit No.5-A/2014 before the Civil Court, but the said suit has also been dismissed vide order dated 7.1.2015 under VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 18661/2017 3 Deepak Kasliwal Vs. Registrar Public Trust & others
5. Being aggrieved by orders dated 23.5.2014, 21.10.2013 and 9.12.2015, petitioner again filed W.P. No.8462/2015 and vide order dated 12.2.2016, the petition has been dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to file a separate writ petition to challenge the order dated 23.5.2014 and 19.11.2015. The writ petition has been dismissed against order dated 21.10.2013 on the ground of having alternative efficacious remedy to challenge the said order by way of a civil suit.
6. Being aggrieved by order dated 12.2.2016 passed in W.P. No.8462/2015, present petitioner filed W.A. No.204/2016 claiming the following relief(s) :-
"1/ This appeal may kindly be allowed after setting aside both the impugned orders dated 12.2.2016 and 15.3.2016;
2/ The writ petition filed by the
appellant may kindly be allowed;
3/ Respondent no.1 order dated
21.10.2013, 24.5.2014 and 19.11.2015 be quashed as passed without jurisdiction;
4/ Cost of this appeal may also be awarded in favour of the appellant; and 5/ Such further or other order may be passed as may be deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case."
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 18661/2017 4 Deepak Kasliwal Vs. Registrar Public Trust & others In the Writ Appeal also, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.10.2013, 23.5.2014 and 19.11.2015. By order dated 23.6.2016, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the Writ Appeal by following observation :
"6. The appellant has drawn our attention to the rejoinder as well as the ground raised in the writ and submitted that without considering the objection of the appellant and, thus, there is no remedy to challenge the aforesaid proceeding but to file this writ appeal. The second writ petition, after dismissal of W.P. No.13533/2013 by the learned Writ Court vide order dated 21.10.2013, was not maintainable. As per record, the appellant is raiding this Court one after another, which is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. It appears that he without realizing the fact of order passed in the writ petition by which lis has been finally decided by the learned Writ Court is in habit of filing writ petitions/review petitions/writ appeals/contempt petitions one after another."
It means that writ petition and writ appeal both have been dismissed in which order dated 23.5.2014 was under
challenge. Thereafter, the petitioner filed R.P. No.227/2016 and vide order dated 7.10.2016, said review petition has been dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 18661/2017
5 Deepak Kasliwal Vs. Registrar Public Trust & others
7. Now, the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 23.5.2014 on the basis of liberty granted to him by the Writ Court in W.P. No.8462/2015. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that when the dispute pertaining to the Trust has already been referred to the Civil Court, therefore, the Registrar, Public Trust has become functus officio to pass any order, hence, the petitioner is having only remedy to challenge the said order in writ petition, hence, he cannot be relegated to civil Court.
8. Learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondents raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of this petition on the ground that the impugned order was passed u/s. 9 of the Act of 1951 against which, writ petition is not maintainable as held by this Court in the earlier writ petition and writ appeal filed by the petitioner.
9. Admittedly, respondent No.2 filed an application u/s. 9(1) of the Act of 1951 in the prescribed format No.6 for induction of name of Aniruddh Kasliwal as a new Trustee against the vacant post. The Registrar, Public Trust has observed that no objection has been received in respect of recording the name of Aniruddh Kasliwal as Trustee of the Trust and learned Civil Court has also approved his name till further orders. Vide order dated 23.5.2014, the Registrar has disposed of the case by recording the name of Aniruddh THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 18661/2017 6 Deepak Kasliwal Vs. Registrar Public Trust & others Kasliwal as a Trustee of the Trust. Once the order has been passed u/s. 9 of the Act of 1951, the only remedy available to any person is to file a civil suit before the Civil Court.
10. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.55/2014 has already held that alternate efficacious remedy is available against the order u/s. 9 of the Act of 1951 by way of a civil suit. The Division Bench has held as under :-
"Heard on the question of admission. By filing this intra court appeal, the appellant/writ petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.13533/2013.
The aforesaid writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 21.10.2013 passed by the Registrar, Public Trust, Indore in Case No.11/A/113/2011-12 in exercise of his power under Section 9(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
Learned Single Judge, after considering the provisions contained in Section 9(1), (2) and (3) as also of Section 8 of the Act, noticed that against the order impugned in the writ petition the appellant/writ petitioner is having an efficacious alternative remedy available, declined to interfere into the order of Registrar, giving liberty to the petitioner to file a civil suit.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 18661/2017 7 Deepak Kasliwal Vs. Registrar Public Trust & others Having considered the submission of the appellant, we are of the view that no case is made out to interfere into the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant/writ petitioner is having statutory efficacious alternative remedy to challenge the order passed by the Registrar, Public Trust by filing a civil suit.
As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed."
11. In view of the above, present petition is also dismissed as not maintainable as the petitioner is having an alternate efficacious remedy to file a civil suit. No order as to costs.
( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE Alok/-