Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shree Devnarayan Mandir Dharmik Avam ... vs The Registra Public Trust on 12 November, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33168
1 WP-41911-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 12th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 41911 of 2025
SHREE DEVNARAYAN MANDIR DHARMIK AVAM PARMARTHIK
TRUST THROUGH ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE SHRI LACHHI
Versus
THE REGISTRA PUBLIC TRUST AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pramod C. Nair - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajwardhan Gawde - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
Heard.
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Shri Devnarayan Mandir Dharmarthik Avam Parmarthik Trust has challenged the order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the Registrar, Public Trust whereby on an application preferred by respondents 2 and 3 he has directed the working Trustee of the Trust to make an application before the Civil Court within a period of 30 days under Section 26 (2) of MP Public Trust Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1951').
2. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to challenge the said order is that it has been passed on the basis of an application made by respondents 2 and 3 under Section 22 and 23 of the Act, 1951 without conducting any inquiry. It was mandatory for the Registrar to Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 18-Nov-25 10:45:52 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33168 2 WP-41911-2025 have required the working trustee to submit an explanation and to have given opportunity to him but the same has not been done. Since the impugned order has been passed in violation of the provisions of Section 22 and 23 of the Act, 1951 the same cannot be sustained.
3. Though application was preferred by respondents No.2 and 3 under Section 22 and 23 of the Act, 1951 but from the impugned order, it is evident that the jurisdiction which has been exercised by the Registrar, Public Trust is under Section 26 of the Act, 1951. For ready reference, the said provision is reproduced below:
"26. Application to Court for directions . - (1) If the Registrar on the application of any person interested in the public trust or otherwise is satisfied that,-
(a) the original object of the public trust has failed;
(b) the trust property is not being properly managed or administered; or
(c) the direction of the Court is necessary for the administration of the public trust;
he may, after giving the working trustee an opportunity to be heard direct such trustee to apply to Court for directions within the time specified by the Registrar.
(2) If the trustee so directed fails to make an application as required, or if there is no trustee of the public trust or if for any other reason, the Registrar considers it expedient to do so, he shall himself make an application to the Court."
4. For the Registrar, Public Trust to exercise power under Section 26 of the Act 1951, it is not mandatory for any application to be made before him for exercise of such power. The said power can be exercised by the Registrar either on the application of any person interested or even otherwise. The only requirement is that he should be satisfied that any of the contingencies as contemplated under sub Section (1) of Section 26 are available. It is not necessary that such satisfaction can be arrived at by him only on an application having been made to him in that regard. The same can be arrived at by him even if the facts entitling him to record such satisfaction Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 18-Nov-25 10:45:52 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33168 3 WP-41911-2025 are brought to his knowledge in any other manner. The same can also be in any proceedings which have been instituted before him under any other provision of the Act, 1951.
5. Though in the present matter, application was preferred by respondents No.2 and 3 under Section 22 and 23 of the Act, 1951 but during course of inquiry on such application the Registrar reached to a conclusion that the contingencies as contemplated under sub Section (1) of Section 26 of the Act, 1951 are available and for that reason he has issued the direction as contained in the impugned order. The power under Section 22 and 23 of the Act, 1951 has not at all been exercised by him hence the requirements of those sections were not required to be complied with by him as has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. From a perusal of the impugned order it is seen that the Registrar has observed that there are serious allegations as regards misappropriation and mismanagement of funds of the Trust and not submitting audit reports within time and also the accounts. The petitioner instead of replying to the allegation has only mentioned about furnishing of an audit report dated 25.07.2022. The shops of the Trust are being used for commercial purposes upon construction and have been let out on rent without any permission from the Registrar. The resolution of the Trust or the minutes of its meeting have not been produced before the Registrar. The trustees of the Trust are acting as per their whims and fancies in respect of property of the Trust without following the legal procedure. There is also a serious allegation that the President of the Trust has been appointed without consent of the trustees. There is no record in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 18-Nov-25 10:45:52 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33168 4 WP-41911-2025 office of the Registrar in respect of his appointment. His name also does not find mention in the Trust Panji yet he is functioning as president of the Trust. All these matters require consideration by the Civil Court and there is a great dispute as regards the working and functioning of the trust.
7. In view of the findings which have been recorded by the Registrar, in my opinion, he has not committed any error in directing the working trustee of the Trust to make an application before the Civil Court under section 26 (2) of the Act, 1951. Moreover, at present only a direction has been given to make the application before the Civil Court where all the contentions as have been raised by the petitioner in this petition would be available to be raised and the matter shall be adjudicated by the Civil Court in extenso. The findings which have been recorded by the Registrar are only prime facie findings and it would always be open for the petitioner to demonstrate that they are erroneous and that the contingencies as contemplated under Section 26 (2) of the Act, 1956 are not available for issuing any directions.
8. Resultantly, it cannot be said that the Registrar has erred in passing the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. The same is accordingly affirmed as a result of which the petition is dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE jyoti Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 18-Nov-25 10:45:52 AM