ORDER S.K. Dubey, J. The Order passed in this petition will also govern the disposal of Misc. Appeal No. 747 of 1994 and Misc. Appeal No. 115 of 1995, preferred against the order dated 6th August, 1994 by the First Additional District Judge, East Nimar, Khandwa in Misc. Case No. 17/93. The facts giving rise to this petition are thus. Admittedly the Petitioner is a registered public trust, as defined in Section 2(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act'). In an earlier litigation a scheme was prepared at the instance of the Registrar, Public Trust in Misc. Case No. 3/60 by the Additional District Judge, Khandwa. On some complaints lodged against the functioning and administration of the Trust, the Registrar, Public Trust, Respondent No. 1 issued a show cause notice dated 30th May, 1992 (Annexure P-2) to the working trustee of the Trust of which the working trustee submitted a reply. The Respondent No. 1 having arrived at a prima facie satisfaction on the complaints and the allegations as detailed in show cause notice, acting under Sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the Act made an application for reference to the Court of District Judge. The Petitioner raised an objection that the reference is incompetent as no compliance has been made on Sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the Act. Some persons interested in the administration of the Trust also made an application to permit them to intervene. The Additional District Judge after hearing parties rejected the objection as well as the application for intervention. Aggrieved of the said order, Petitioner-trust through working trustee has filed Misc. Appeal No. 747 of 1994 and Interveners have filed Misc. Appeal No. 115 of 1995. The Petitioner trust has also filed the petition for quashing the order dated 5-3-1993 of making the reference to the Court of District Judge. Shri Abhay Sapre, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent No. 1 without giving an opportunity of hearing to the working trustee on the show cause notice and without its satisfaction made a reference. The Registrar, Public Trust can make application u/s 26(2) of the Act on his satisfaction when the trustee so directed fails to make an application as required. Therefore, the reference is incompetent and the order of the Respondent No. 1 deserves to be quashed. Shri V.K. Shukla, Govt. The Registrar, Public Trust can make application u/s 26(2) of the Act on his satisfaction when the trustee so directed fails to make an application as required. Therefore, the reference is incompetent and the order of the Respondent No. 1 deserves to be quashed. Shri V.K. Shukla, Govt. Advocate submitted that the reference made by the Respondent No. 1 u/s 26(2) of the Act is not on an application of any person interested in the Public Trust, or on the failure of working trustee to make an application as directed u/s 26(1) of the Act. But it is the application made u/s 26(2) of the Act by the Registrar of Public Trust to the Court which does not contemplate an opportunity of hearing to the trustee before making such application. Counsel cited the decisions in Charanand (Swami) v. Registrar, Public Trust, 1961 JLJ 227 and V.V. Dravid v. State, 1982 JLJ 195 . Shri R.K. Thakur and Dr. N.K. Shukla for the Appellants in Misc. Appeal No. 115 of 1995 and Shri Prashant Jaiswal for the Intervener in the present petition while supporting the learned Government Advocate submitted that the Court erred in not allowing the intervention. To appreciate the contentions reference to Sections 26 and 27 of the Act is necessary which I reproduce - 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 direction 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 or if for any other reason, the Registrar considers it expedient to do so, he shall himself make an application to the Court. Court's power to hear application. - (1) On receipt of such application the Court shall make or cause to be made such inquiry into case as it deems fit and pass such order thereon as it may consider appropriate. Court's power to hear application. - (1) On receipt of such application the Court shall make or cause to be made such inquiry into case as it deems fit and pass such order thereon as it may consider appropriate. (2) While exercising the power under Sub-section (1) the Court shall among other powers, have power to make an order for - (a) removing any trustee; (b) appointing a new trustee; (c) declaring what portion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust; (d) providing a scheme of management of the trust property; (e) directing how the funds of a public trust whose original object has failed, shall be "spent, having due regard to the original intention of the auditor of the trust or the object for which the trust was created; (f) issuing any directions as the nature of the case may require. (3) Any order passed by the Court under Sub-section (2) shall be deemed to be a decree of such Court and an appeal shall lie therefrom to the High Court. (4) No suit relating to a public trust u/s 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) shall be entertained by any Court on any matter in respect of which an application can be made u/s 26. A bare reading of Sub-section (1) of Section 26 shows that the Registrar on an application of any person interested in the Public Trust or otherwise is satisfied in respect of the acts enumerated in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) which are illustrated and not exhaustive, after giving the working trustee an opportunity of being heard direct such trustee to apply to the Court for directions within the time specified by the Registrar. Sub-section (2) speaks of making a reference by Registrar in two situations (i) if the trustee so directed fails to make an application as required or for other reasons, the Registrar himself considers expedient to do so, can make an application to the Court. When Registrar himself makes an application he has to be satisfied himself about the matters enumerated in Clauses (a) to (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the Act. On this if Registrar considers himself expedient to do so he can make the application. In such a situation no opportunity of hearing is necessary. When Registrar himself makes an application he has to be satisfied himself about the matters enumerated in Clauses (a) to (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the Act. On this if Registrar considers himself expedient to do so he can make the application. In such a situation no opportunity of hearing is necessary. A working trustee is entitled to an opportunity of hearing if directions u/s 26(1) of the Act is to be made to him for applying to the Court for direction. As the power has been exercised by the Respondent No. 1 himself under Sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the Act by making an application for reference for seeking direction, even though the notice to show cause was issued to the trust and its trustee that would not invalidate the reference. Charanand (Swami)'s case (supra) and V.V. Dravid's case (supra). When an application as required is made u/s 26 to the Court, the Court u/s 27 of the Act, gets jurisdiction to hear such an application and to pass such order as it may consider appropriate after making an enquiry as it deems fit into the contents of the reference in the best interest of the trust. As the Respondent No. 1 made the application for reference, himself, u/s 26(2) of the Act, considering it to be expedient, wherein the proposed interveners sought to intervene, which is not permissible as the enquiry by the Additional District Judge is to be confined itself to the statement of allegations in the reference made by the Respondent No. 1 for directions by the Court and, therefore, the scope of enquiry cannot be enlarged by permitting the interveners. See Ram Janki Mandir v. Registrar, Public Trust, Jabalpur, 1977 MPLJ 35. Therefore, the appeal of Intervener and prayer of Intervener in this petition cannot be allowed. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the petition and the two appeals M.A. No. 747 of 1994 and M.A. No. 115 of the 1995 are dismissed with no order as to costs.