Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rajkumar Dhamecha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 June, 2015

                               1
                                         W. P. No.8252/2015

                    W. P. No.8252/2015
08.06.2015
       Shri A. M. Trivedi, learned Senior counsel with
Shri   N.     C.   Bachwani,   learned   counsel   for   the
petitioner.
       Heard on admission.
       Sub-Section (3) of Section 25 of the M. P. Public
Trust Act, 1951, empowers the Registrar (Respondent

No.2 in present case) to fill the vacancy (ies) which occur in the Board of Trustees in case working trustees having failed to fill the vacancy (ies) within the time specified.

In the case at hand, an occasion of the nature having arisen led respondent No.2 to direct for filling up the vacancy (ies) by adhering to the modalities prescribed in bye laws i.e. by election, by appointing an election officer. During process whereof certain objections raised by the petitioners allegedly not being addressed by the election officer has led the petitioner to file this petition seeking direction to respondents to decide representation.

The relief sought when tested on the anvil of the scheme contained under Section 25 of 1951 Act, cannot be acceded. The reason being that sub-section 2 W. P. No.8252/2015 (3) of Section 25 of 1951 Act besides empowering the Registrar to pass an order regarding filling up of the vacancy in Board of Trustees creates right in "any person having interest in the public trust who may be aggrieved by the order of the Registrar, may apply to the Court for setting aside of the order of the Registrar within thirty days from the date of such orders".

Since the election process has already started, a right would accrue in the petitioner after the conclusion of the election and the order passed in writing by the Registrar to that effect.

Considered thus no indulgence is caused. Petition fails and is dismissed.

No costs.

(SANJAY YADAV) V. JUDGE Loretta 3 W. P. No.8252/2015