Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.19(B) Learned counsel further submitted that the contention of the other side that there is a deem public trust under the provisions of the Act, if a society is registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act and is for religious or charitable purpose. In fact, if any application is made under the provisions of the BPT Act for registration of a society already registered under the provisions of the SRA Act as a trust, the Assistant Charity Commissioner has to decide under Section 19 of the BPT Act whether the trust exists and whether the society is for charitable and religious purpose or not. If it is found that the society is not having any religious or charitable purpose, the Assistant Charity Commissioner can refuse to register it as a trust. When application is made for registration of a society as a Trust, the members of the public and/or beneficiaries can also object to the same on the ground that the society in question is not actually for the religious or charitable purpose. It is, therefore, clear that after due inquiry under Sec.19 of the BPT Act, the Assistant Charity Commissioner has to decide the following things:

Regarding Repugnancy of SR & BPT Act:

4.19(D) Regarding repugnancy between SR Act and BPT Act, learned counsel submitted that the State has received the assent of the President on 31.5.1950 and the same was published in Gazette on 14.8.1950 and was made applicable on 21.1.1952 in Bombay State. The same was made applicable by the Gujarat Government in the whole State of Gujarat on 1.8.1961 and the same was published in Government Gazette part IV B dated 3.8.61.

4.19(E) Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that the issue regarding repugnancy between the Central and the State laws is misconceived on facts and law in the present case. The question of repugnancy would arise only when the provisions are covering the same field. Subject of `registration of society' does not fall under the List II or List III of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and, therefore, it falls under the Entry 97 of the List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution. The SRA Act is, therefore, enacted by the Parliament under Entry 97 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India. As far as the BPT ACt is concerned, it is covered by Entry No. 10 of List III of Schedule VII (concurrent List) of the Constitution of India. The SRA Act and the BPT Act do not cover the same subject or the field and, therefore, there is no question of repugnancy as far as their provisions are concerned. The question of repugnancy arises where Central and State laws occupy the same field and cannot stand together. In any case, as stated hereinabove, once the facts of the present case fall under Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India, the question of repugnancy of provisions under Article 254(1) of the Constitution will not arise and the State law will prevail. It is, therefore, clear that even assuming that there is any conflict between the provisions of the SRA Act and in particular Section 13 thereof and the BPT Act and in particular Secs.19, 79 and 80 thereof, there is no question of repugnancy inasmuch as the State law will prevail and jurisdiction of a Civil Court will be barred under Sec.80 of the BPT Act.

4.19(F) Thereafter learned counsel for the respondent submitted that case reported in AIR 2002 SC 3404 Kaiser-Hind Mill case (supra) squarely covers the point that if the Parliament has enacted a law and if subsequent State law conflicts with Central law and the State law has received assent of President, the State law will prevail over the Central law in case of any conflict between the provisions of the said laws. The present case falls under Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as subsequent State law namely Bombay Public Trusts Act which has received assent of the President would prevail in the State of Gujarat over any central legislation which has provided any conflicting provision regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Therefore, assuming without admitting, that there is conflict between Sec.13 of the SRA ACt and the provisions of the BPT Act, the provisions of the BPT Act will prevail in the State of Gujarat, and, therefore, the Civil Court's jurisdiction will be ousted regarding any question to be decided under the provisions of the BPT Act, pertaining to any registered trust and the provisions of Sec.13 of the SRA Act will have no application.

4.19(H) Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that it is consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if two Acts operate in different fields, the question of repugnancy does not arise. In the Gujarat State, BPT Act would prevail over any provisions which may be repugnant or conflicting under the SRA Act.

4.20 As regards Sec.26 of the BPT Act and the contention raised by the appellants, it was contended on behalf of the respondents that it is clear that in the first place it must be the decision of the competent court. If under Section 13, any order is made regarding society by the District Court, which is a competent court, then only question would arise. Section 26 clearly says that any question, decision of which is barred under the BPT Act, only such question decided by any court or authority is to be registered by making change in the entry by the Charity Commissioner. In the present case, as stated hereinabove if the suit is barred under Section 79 read with Section 80 of the BPT Act, the question regarding any decision made by the competent court does not arise in the present case.