Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kripa Ram vs Ram Krishan Das Guru Of Mahant Shri Ramji ... on 18 March, 2015
1 WP.7354/2014
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT GWALIOR.
SB : Justice Sujoy Paul
WP No. 7354/2014
Kripa Ram
Vs.
Ram Krishan Das & Ors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Vikas Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Harish Dixit, Advocate for the respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
( 18 / 03 / 2015 ) This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 10 th September, 2014 whereby respondent No.1's application dated 27.11.2012 is allowed and he has been permitted to participate in the proceedings.
2. The admitted facts between the parties are that the Misc. Case No. 1/2014 is instituted on 14.09.2014. The said case is infact a reference made under Section 26(2) of M.P. Public Trusts Act,1951(Act). In said proceedings, the respondent No.1 preferred an application (Annexure P/5) dated 27.11.2012 and stated that he may be given an opportunity of hearing. This application is allowed by the court below. This order is criticized on the ground that in a reference the respondent No.1 has no locus standi.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on this aspect.
4. The point involved in this case is no more res integra. In 1977 (II) MPWN SN 270 (Shri Ram Janki Mandir Trust Vs. Registrar, Public Trust, Jabalpur and Anr.) this Court opined as under :-
"On hearing the counsel appearing for the working trustees and Kedar Nath, this Court is inclined to accept both the contentions. Under Section 26 of the M.P. Trusts Act, Kedar Nath could no doubt move the Registrar and satisfy him that the original 2 WP.7354/2014 object of the trust has failed or that the property of the trust was being mismanaged or that directions of the Court are necessary for the administration of the trust. But after the Registrar was satisfied on any of these points, the applicant's intervention was no longer required . The Registrar was then supposed to act under the first part of section 26 or second part of section 26 by requiring the working trustees to apply to the Court for directions or upon his failure to make a reference itself, if it was considered expedient. A distinction has to be borne in mind between section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 26 of the M.P. Public Trusts Act. Under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Advocate- General or with his permission any two or more persons having interest in the trust may institute the suit, whereas under
section 26 of the M.P. Public Trusts Act, the Registrar himself or under his direction, the working trustee has to make an application for direction of the Court. No third person, even upon authorisation by the Registrar, can institute any proceeding. The idea, it appears, is that the trustees should not be harassed by vexatious and multifarious proceedings by third persons and that it should be the sole responsibility of the Registrar to see that the trust was properly administered . The reference that the Registrar makes and directs to be made under section 26, is then the plaint upon which the District Judge proceeds. His jurisdiction is invoked only by either of the two modes prescribed by section 26. It follows that no third person has locus standi to intervene as an applicant before the District Judge, and the District Judge has to confine his enquiry only to those allegations as the reference order of the Registrar contain . If any one desires the scope of the inquiry to be enlarged on facts discovered later, or of which the Registrar had not taken notice of, he has to move the Registrar over again under section 26 for making a further reference. Kedar Nath's intervention, therefore, could not be permitted by the District Judge as if he was the applicant and the working trustees were responsible to him to answer the charges. His position could be that of a witness to substantiate the allegations upon which the reference was made."
(Emphasis supplied)
5. Shri Harish Dixit, learned counsel for the respondent, 3 WP.7354/2014 relied on Section 27 of the Act to submit that court has power to hear application. However, a plain reading of Section 27 shows that it talks about such application. The words "such application" has to be related with an application referred in Section 26 of the Act. If it is permissible, it may be open for the court to call the respondent No.1 as witness. Presently, the point involve is whether respondent No.1 has any right of hearing in a reference made by the competent authority.
6. In view of the judgment of Shri Ram Janki Mandir Trust ( Supra), I am unable to hold that respondent No.1 has any independent right to address the Court in any capacity. However, it will be open for the Court or the parties to call the respondent No.1 as witness. In view of this finding, the order dated 10 th September, 2014 needs to be interfered with. Accordingly, the order dated 10.09.2014 (Annexure P/7) to the extent it permits the respondent No.1 to participate in the proceedings, is set aside. Application dated 27.11.2012 is rejected.
7. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
(Sujoy Paul) Judge sarathe