Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 264 (MP)

VIJAY PANDA v. STATE OF M. P.

2003-02-11

ARUN MISHRA

body2003
ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the order P/2 dated 15-1-2001 passed by the Registrar, Public Trust, Jabalpur and further direction to the respondents No. 2 to 4 not to disturb the possession of the petitioner and his committee managing the temple "Budhi Khermai" Jabalpur. 2. Petitioner's case is that he was managing the ancient temple known as "Budhi Khermai" Jabalpur since 1978 and has developed the temple a committee was managing affairs and when the petitioner was going in "Kumbha Mela" at Allahabad, State of Uttar Pradesh, one Yatish Agrawal, claiming himself to be the Secretary of "Shri Raj Rajeshwari (Dhumawati) Maa Budhi Khermai Temple" filed an application under section 4 of the M. P. Public Trust Act, 1951 before the Registrar of Public Trust for registration of trust. The Registrar, Public Trust, initiated proceedings and notified the proposal to register trust in M. P. Gazette dated 1-12-2000. Petitioner averred that the petitioner was the controlling authority of the said temple and the Head of the committee which was managing the temple. No notice was issued by the Registrar of Public Trust and not only the trust has been registered, but, the managing committee as proposed by respondent No. 5; Yatish Agrawal has been formed. Petitioner was kept in dark as to proceedings and after the temple has been developed, antisocial persons have taken the steps and usurped administration. A report was lodged against Yatish Agrawal, Sharad Agrawal, Subodh Sahu and Anand Mohan Pathak, entry of which found place in daily diary at No. 1121 dated 12-4-2000. They had tortured the petitioner and harassed him. After passing of the order several persons; Sarvashri Dinesh Rathore, Murlidhar Tamrakar, Ganesh Choudha, Santosh Gupta, Baijnath Agrahari, Mangal Khandelwal and Shri Jugal Shrivas filed affidavits before the Registrar, Public Trust for cancelling the order and submitted that the previous committee headed by petitioner was already maintaining and managing the temple properly, therefore, no new committee/trust is necessary. Shri Yatish Agrawal who claimed himself to be the Secretary of the Trust formed was involved in number of antisocial activities. Only the persons proposed by Yatish Agrawal have been included in the trust. Yatish Agrawal is a disputed person. Copy of Rojanamcha Sanha has been placed on record. 3. Shri Yatish Agrawal who claimed himself to be the Secretary of the Trust formed was involved in number of antisocial activities. Only the persons proposed by Yatish Agrawal have been included in the trust. Yatish Agrawal is a disputed person. Copy of Rojanamcha Sanha has been placed on record. 3. It is further averred that as per order dated 15-1-2001 the Trust was registered by the Registrar, Public Trust and as proposed by Shri Yatish Agrawal, 12 persons have been taken as trustees, which were mentioned in the application. Out of 12 trustees, 8 persons are Government Officials. One is MLA. 4. In the return filed by the respondents No. 1, 3 and 4, it is contended that the petitioner has to approach the Civil Court. Writ petition is not maintainable. Registrar of Public Trust has made enquiry as contemplated under section 5. Proper procedure was followed. Application R/1 was moved by Yatish Agrawal on 11-5-2000. Notice was issued and published in official gazette. Gazette publication R/2 dated 1-9-2000 was made. Notice R/3 was affixed on 28-8-2000 at the temple. Due to inadvertent typographical error order records the date of publication as 1-11-2000 whereas it was published on 1-9-2000. Wrong mention of the date deserves to be ignored. Petitioner has made an endorsement on the counter copy of the notice, thus, the petitioner was aware of proceedings. Hence, instant petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner and it is averred that the local administration has virtually tried to usurp the entire administration of the temple. Application itself was prepared by the local administration in the name of Shri Yatish Agrawal. Hence, instant petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner and it is averred that the local administration has virtually tried to usurp the entire administration of the temple. Application itself was prepared by the local administration in the name of Shri Yatish Agrawal. The application itself contained the description of the office bearers of Trust dominated by administrative and police authorities as "ex-officio" office-bearers and members as under : (1) President - S. D. M. Gohalpur (ex-officio); (2) Vice-President - (1) C. S. P. Gohalpur (ex-officio); (2) Shri Sharad Agrawal (3) Secretary - Shri Yatish Agrawal; (4) Joint Secretary - Shri Subodh Sahu;Members of the Trust : (1) The M.L.A. Jabalpur Central Constituency (ex-officio) (2) The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation or his representative (ex-officio) (3) Tahsildar, Nazul (ex-officio) (4) C. S. P. Kotwali (ex-officio) (5) Town Inspector of Police, Hanumantal (ex-officio) (6) Town Inspector of Police, Gohalpur (ex-officio) (7) Town Inspector of Police, Kotwali (ex-officio) Only three persons from General Public and rest 9 persons as "ex-officio" have been inducted as strustees from amongst the administrative and police-officers, which include five police-officers. Registrar has not followed the prescribed procedure and has not made the enquiry into the various aspects as enumerated in section 5 of the Public Trust Act. It is submitted that no such managing committee of temple as mentioned in application was in existence. Prior to submitting the application before the Registrar, Public Trust. Entire exercise was at the behest of District Administration. An enquiry under section 5 was only an eye-wash. On 28-8-2000 endorsement was made on R/3 by the petitioner as petitioner was asked to give assent as if he has been appointee as trustee of the temple and on the back of the said notice petitioner made an endorsement "I Awadhut Baba, son of Mauther Budhi, Vijay Panda refuse to accept the appointment - letter given by you and do not accept the exercise of Trust." Petitioner submits he was not apprised of the correct fact, otherwise he would not have made the endorsement on R/3 to the above effect. 6. It is further averred by petitioner that it is not the function of the State Government Officials to participate in the religious affairs and to become trustees of the religious trust and entirely usurp trust. 6. It is further averred by petitioner that it is not the function of the State Government Officials to participate in the religious affairs and to become trustees of the religious trust and entirely usurp trust. Temple of "Budhi Khermai" is a worship place of the people belonging to Hindu Faith/religion Any day a person not being Hindu, may be posted as S.D.M. Gohalpur or C.S.P. Gohalpur and in his "ex-officio" capacity may become the President or Vice-President of the said Trust. In said circumstances, the position of said officers shall become awkward. The Hindu devotees have freedom to manage their religious affairs, worship etc. themselves, without any interference from the functionaries of the State subject to Public-order, morality and law of the land. 7. Shri A. M. Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that formation of the trust and in particular that of inclusion of the trustees as per the list proposed by respondent No. 5 is bad in law. The Managing Committee which was managing the trust has not made the application. Enquiry has not been made into various aspects mentioned in section 5. Petitioner was misled, and defrauded in obtaining an endorsement over notice R/3. He has also submitted that the State Government should keep away from such trust which is to be managed by Hindu devotees and registrar could not have imposed scheme of management. Order is violative of right of Hindu devotees to manage the affairs of religious temple. 8. Shri Ashok Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 has contended that the order is proper. Gazette notification was made. No objections were received, as such the proposal made in the application filed before the Registrar of the Trust has been accepted and inclusion of only those persons as proposed in application in the trust cannot invalidate the order. Petitioner is having the remedy of approaching the civil Court under section 8 by way of filing civil suit, as such writ jurisdiction cannot be allowed to be invoked. The impugned order is proper and calls for no interference in this writ petition. 9. Record has been produced by the respondents. Perusal of the record indicates that the application was filed by one Shri Yatish Agrawal on 11-5-2000 for registration of the Trust under section 4. The impugned order is proper and calls for no interference in this writ petition. 9. Record has been produced by the respondents. Perusal of the record indicates that the application was filed by one Shri Yatish Agrawal on 11-5-2000 for registration of the Trust under section 4. On 3-7-2000 the Registrar, Public Trust ordered NOC to be called from the Nazul Department. The ordersheet dated 11-7-2000 shows that the Secretary of the Trust; Yatish Agrawal was present. The ordersheets dated 17-7-2000, 28-7-2000 and 31-7-2000 indicate that no information was received from the Nazul Department. However, on 31-7-2000, it was directed that notification be published in the gazette. Next date fixed was 29-9-2000. On 29-9-2000 it is mentioned that no objections were filed. On 17-11-2000, Registrar directed that the letter be issued to obtain the information as to moveable and immoveable properties of the Trust. Said information was not received on next date 23-11-2000, it appears that SDM, Gohalpur submitted list of moveable and immoveable properties of the Trust and on 15-1-2001 itself order registering the trust was passed. 10. In the order, the Registrar Public Trust has included as the trustees all persons proposed in the application filed by Shri Yatish Agrawal. Along with application for registration of trust, resolution dated 4-5-2000 purported to be signed by 8 persons, was filed signed by the Additional District Magistrate, SDM - Gohalpur, C.S.P. Gohalpur and five persons of public; Shri Yatish Agrawal, Shri Subodh Sahu, Shri Mathura, Shri Hari Kesharwani and Shri Sharad Agrawal. SDM, Gohalpur has signed the proposed deed of Trust along with two other persons. Maintenance Khasra for the year 95-96 to 1997-98 records that the Survey No. 195 is not recorded in the name of Nazul, but, in the ownership of "Sarbarahkar Panchas" and Survey No. 335 is recorded as "Nazul" under the "management of Sarbarahkar Panchas". Information as to ownership was sought from the Nazul Department. A Letter dated 2-9-2000 is also on record, in which, it is mentioned that priest of Temple "Budhi Khermai" was involved in unlawful activities. As far as formation of trust is concerned it was registered by the Registrar, Public Trust. Gazette publication dated 1-9-2000 is on record which shows that the next date fixed before the Registrar was 29-9-2000 and objections to be submitted within one month in two copies. If any, objection is received thereafter shall not be entertained. As far as formation of trust is concerned it was registered by the Registrar, Public Trust. Gazette publication dated 1-9-2000 is on record which shows that the next date fixed before the Registrar was 29-9-2000 and objections to be submitted within one month in two copies. If any, objection is received thereafter shall not be entertained. On 8-12-2000 a letter was written by the Registrar, Public Trust to the City Superintendent Police, Gohalpur to conduct meeting of the trust and to submit the list of moveable and immoveable properties. An incomplete list was sent by SDM, Gohalpur on 5-1-2001. The land mentioned is in possession of the temple and as far as he could gather the information, articles were mentioned and it was mentioned there may be certain other articles which may be verified after formation of the trust and information shall be given as soon as information is received. 11. The object of the trust is religious to organize Sewa Pooja of the deity, to organize function on the festivals. 12. It is clear from the documents on record that the existing Managing Committee which was managing the temple and also the "Sarbarahkar" who is recorded as Manager in revenue paper were not taken into confidence either by submitting application or at the time of submission of the information of trust properties. No meeting of the Managing Committee was called which was managing the said temple for several decades. Only 8 persons allegedly held separate meeting for the purpose of formation of the trust. Out of those, 3 were Government Officials; Additional District Magistrate, SDM-Gohalpur and C.S.P. Gohalpur. No notice of the said meeting if any issued to members has been placed on record on the file of Registrar, Public Trust and it is clear that to the total exclusion of the "devotees" "Sarbarahkar", the SDM, Gohalpur prepared the trust-deed and had included 8 of the Government Officials out of 12 trustees and the proceedings goes to show that the Registrar, Public Trust has proceeded on the premises that existing the Managing committee of the trust has filed the application. It appears that committee/Sarbarahkar which was managing affairs for long was not at all included in the trust by the Registrar, Public Trust. 13. It appears that committee/Sarbarahkar which was managing affairs for long was not at all included in the trust by the Registrar, Public Trust. 13. Section 4 of the M.P. Public Trust Act provides that applications to be made by working trustee of a public trust for the purpose of registration. Section requires certain particulars to be mentioned in the application; the origin, nature and object of the public trust, the place where the principal office or the principal place of business of the public trust is situate; the names and addresses of the working trustee and the manager, the mode of succession to the office of the trustees, list of the movable and immovable trust property in the State and such description and particulars as may be sufficient for the identification thereof, the approximate value of the movable and immovable property, the income derived from movable and immovable property and from any other source, if any, based on the gross annual income during the three years immediately preceding the date on which the application is made or of the period which has lapsed since the creation of trust whichever period is shorter and in the case of a newly created public trust the estimated income from such sources, amount of average annual expenditure in connection with such public trust estimated on the expenditure incurred within the period to which the particulars under clause (vi) relate, the address to which any communication to the working trustee or manager in connection with the public trust may be sent. Under section 4(4) the registrar is to first decide which registrar shall have jurisdiction to register the public trust. 14. Under section 4(4) the registrar is to first decide which registrar shall have jurisdiction to register the public trust. 14. Sub-section (3) of section 4 of the M. P. Public Trusts Act prescribes the following particulars be mentioned in the application : (i) the origin, nature and object of the public trust; (ii) the place where the principal office or the principal place of business of the public trust is situate; (iii) the names and addresses of the working trustee and the manager; (iv) the mode of succession to the office of the trustees; (v) the list of the movable and immovable trust property in the State and such description and particulars as may be sufficient for the identification thereof; (vi) the approximate value of the movable and immovable property; (vii) the income derived from movable and immovable property and from any other source, if any, based on the gross annual income during the three years immediately preceding the date on which the application is made or of the period which has lapsed since the creation of trust whichever period is shorter and in the case of a newly created public trust the estimated income from such sources; (viii) amount of average annual expenditure in connection with such public trust estimated on the expenditure incurred within the period to which the particulars under clause (vi) relate; (ix) the address to which any communication to the working trustee or manager in connection with the public trust may be sent and (x) such other particulars as may be prescribed : Provided that the rules may provide that in the case of any or all public trusts it shall not be necessary to give the particulars of the trust property of such value and such kind as may be specified therein. In the instant case most of particulars were not mentioned. 15. Section 5 of the M. P. Public Trusts Act requires enquiry to be done by the registrar in the matters enumerated therein. Section 5 is quoted below : "5. Inquiry for registration. In the instant case most of particulars were not mentioned. 15. Section 5 of the M. P. Public Trusts Act requires enquiry to be done by the registrar in the matters enumerated therein. Section 5 is quoted below : "5. Inquiry for registration. - (1) On receipt of an application under section 4 or upon, an application made by any person having interest in a public trust or on his own motion the Registrar shall make an inquiry in the prescribed manner for the purpose of ascertaining :- (i) whether the trust is a public trust; (ii) whether any property is the property of such trust; (iii) whether the whole or any substantial portion of the subject-matter of the trust is situated within his jurisdiction; (iv) the names and addresses of the trustees and the manager of such trust; (v) the mode of succession to the office of the trustee of such trust; (vi) the origin, nature and object of such trust; (vii) the amount of gross average annual income and the expenditure of such trust; and (viii) the correctness or otherwise of any other particulars furnished under sub-section (3) of section 4. (2) The Registrar shall give in the prescribed manner public notice of the inquiry proposed to be made under sub-section (1) and invite all persons interested in the public trust under inquiry to prefer objections, if any, in respect of such trust" 16. Section 5 of the M. P. Public Trusts Act provides for making an application for the purpose of registration on receipt of an application under section 4. It has to be ascertained whether the trust is a public trust, whether any property is the property of such trust; whether the whole or any substantial portion of the subject-matter of the trust is situated within his jurisdiction; the names and addresses of the trustees and the manager of such trust; the mode of succession to the office of the trustee of such trust; the origin, nature and object of such trust; the amount of gross average annual income and the expenditure of such trust; and the correctness or otherwise of any other particulars furnished under sub-section (3) of section 4. The Registrar shall give in the prescribed manner public notice of the inquiry proposed to be made under sub-section (1) and "invite all persons" interested in the public trust under inquiry to prefer objections, if any, in respect of such trust. 17. Section 6 of the M. P. Public Trusts Act requires the registrar to record findings with reasons as to the matters mentioned in the said section and then under section 7 registrar has to make entry in the register. Section 6 of the M. P. Public Trusts Act provides that on completion of the inquiry provided for under section 5, the Registrar shall record his findings with reasons therefore as to the matters mentioned in the said section. Section 6 is quoted below : "6. Findings of the Registrar. On completion of the inquiry provided for under section 5, the Registrar shall record his findings with reasons therefore as to the matters mentioned in the said section. 18. The Apex Court in Hasan Nurani Malak vs. S. M. Ismail, Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nagpur and ors., AIR 1967 SC 1742 has laid down that it is incumbent upon the registrar to find that a particular trust is a public trust or not. If his finding is that it is a public trust, he can make entry, not otherwise. SDO has not applied his mind from above point of view. 19. In the instant case SDO has not made enquiry as to various aspects and has imposed his scheme. In Kashipuri vs. Registrar of Public Trusts Indore, 1976 MPWN Short Note 17, a Division Bench of this Court has laid down that the Registrar should find out whether a particular trust is a public trust or a private trust. If it is a public trust he should give his findings as to the other matters mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 5 and Registrar is "not competent to impose his own scheme" for the management and administration of the trust. Where registrar has recorded the finding without complying with the mandatory provisions of section 5, 6 and 7 such finding is illegal and unsustainable as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Shrinivas Rao vs. Registrar of Public Trusts, Hoshangabad, 1966 JLJ Short Note 27. Adequate opportunity should be given to the person challenging the declaration of a public trust. 20. Adequate opportunity should be given to the person challenging the declaration of a public trust. 20. In the instant case, it is clear that the existing managing committee, "Sarbarahkar" and the priest who were managing the temple were not taken into confidence and not duly noticed. 21. The Registrar, in the instant case, has not recorded the evidence. No enquiry into matters enumerated in section 5 was held. Trust is a public or private, which body was earlier managing it for long time has not been gone into, who is "Sarbarahkar" of temple. The name of "Sarbarahkar" is recorded in the revenue papers as owner of one of the survey No. 195 which entry is presumed to be correct under section 117 of M. P. Land Revenue Code 1959. Name of the State or Nazul Department is not mentioned, as owner of survey No. 195, on other two survey numbers land is recorded in the name of Nazul department. "Origin" and "nature" of the management of the trust has not been considered at all. Enquiry into amount of gross average annual income and expenditure of such trust as provided in section 5(1)(vii) has not been held. No finding has been given as to correctness of the particulars under section 5(1)(viii) of the Act, as to particulars furnished in the application filed under section 4(3) of the Act. 22. It is clear from the endorsement made on the back of the notice R/3 which is purported to be served on the petitioner that petitioner was not correctly informed of the nature of the proceedings. He had mentioned in the notice that he was not assenting to be a trustee, whereas there was no proposal at all to make him a trustee, nor petitioner was required to express his consent by Registrar Public Trust whether he wanted to be a trustee, thus, it is clear that the petitioner was not informed of the correct facts and exact nature of the proceedings. It appears that the petitioner was defrauded. In any event non participation by the petitioner cannot absolve the Registrar of making an enquiry as mandated under sections 5 and 6 of the Act. 23. It is also clear that the gazette publication was made on 1st September 2000 whereas the objections were invited on 29-9-2000. It appears that the petitioner was defrauded. In any event non participation by the petitioner cannot absolve the Registrar of making an enquiry as mandated under sections 5 and 6 of the Act. 23. It is also clear that the gazette publication was made on 1st September 2000 whereas the objections were invited on 29-9-2000. The period of 30 days was not left between the date 29-9-2000 and the date of publication 1-9-2000. That apart, it was incumbent to conduct an enquiry which has not been held. A Division Bench of this Court in Kashipuri vs. Registrar of Public Trusts Indore, 1976 MPWN 17 has held that it is not for the Registrar to lay down the scheme as regards the management and administration of the trust and it is not open to the Registrar to impose the condition to deposit the lease amount immediately in the bank. Scope of enquiry under section 5 is to find out whether a particular trust is a public trust or a private trust. In case it is found that it is a public trust, the Registrar is required to give his findings as to the other matters mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 5 of the M. P. Public Trusts Act. While doing so the Registrar is not competent to impose his own scheme for the management and administration of the trust. In the instant case Registrar has virtually imposed a scheme of management in the impugned order which runs contrary to the decision of Division Bench of this Court. A Division Bench in Kashipur (supra) has held thus : "The impugned order of the Registrar, so far as it relates to the appointment of the trustees laying down the scheme as regards the management and administration of the trust and the condition imposed on the petitioner, to deposit the lease amount immediately in the bank is without jurisdiction. The scope of enquiry under section 5 of the M. P. Public Trusts Act is firstly to find out whether a particular trust is a public trust or a private trust and in the case it is found to be a Public Trust, the Registrar is required to give his findings as to the other matters mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 5 of the M. P. Public Trusts Act. While doing so the Registrar is not competent to impose his own scheme for the management and administration of the trust. A bare reading of the impugned order would show that the Registrar has not given clear findings as to the matters mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 5 of the M. P. Public Trust Act, and while holding that Shri Khedapati Maruti temple is a Public trust, be usurped the jurisdiction of the civil Court in making provisions for the management and administration of the trust. For these reasons the impugned order being bad in law must be set aside. In the result the petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Registrar is hereby quashed and it is hereby directed that the Registrar shall re-examine the matter and dispose of the application of the petitioner for registration of the Shri Khedapati Maruti temple as a Public Trust in accordance with law as already discussed above. Sheoprasad Dubey vs. Registrar Public Trusts, Sagar and others 1972 JLJ SN 6 relied on. Petition allowed. 24. A Division Bench of this Court in Vaishnavadas vs. Registrar of Public Trusts, 1962 JLJ SN 207 has quashed the decision of the Registrar of Public trust of registering the trust. It has been held that adequate opportunity should be given to the person challenging the declaration of a public trust and what is adequate opportunity has been discussed. Merely not raising objection is not enough. It is incumbent to record findings along with reasons under section 6 of the Act which have to be judicial one based of full and complete enquiry. Procedure if not adopted itself causes prejudice specially to Mahant, is apparent, in case same has not been followed. Enquiry has to be validly held in accordance with law. Omission or non participation cannot be in the way to quash the order of the Registrar manifestly untenable in law as it is. The Registration of the trust was set aside by the Division Bench. The decision is attracted to instant case squarely. 25. In Shrinivas Rao vs. Registrar of Public Trusts, Hoshangabad, 1966 JLJ Short Note 27 a Division Bench of this Court held that an invalid order passed by the Registrar cannot be allowed to stand merely due to non-participation. Provisions contained in sections 5, 6 and 7 are mandatory. The decision is attracted to instant case squarely. 25. In Shrinivas Rao vs. Registrar of Public Trusts, Hoshangabad, 1966 JLJ Short Note 27 a Division Bench of this Court held that an invalid order passed by the Registrar cannot be allowed to stand merely due to non-participation. Provisions contained in sections 5, 6 and 7 are mandatory. Enquiry has to be conducted into various aspects enumerated in section 5(1) and finding has to be recorded along with reasons. Order was set aside; dictum applies to present case with full force. 26. Next submission of the Shri Adarsh Muni Trivedi is that the impugned order contravenes the provision of Article 26 of Constitution of India. His submission is that it is trust which is for the purpose of religious ceremony, performance of Sewa Puja and ceremonies to be performed to establish temple as religious centre as such Government Officials cannot be allowed to usurp these functions. 27. In Ratilal Punachand Gandhi vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 388 it is laid down that a religious sector denomination has the undoubted right guaranteed by the Constitution to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; encroachment cannot be made on the right to management of that religious affairs. It is held in HRE Madras vs. Shri Laxmindras, AIR 1954 SC 282 that offerings to be made, periodical ceremonies, daily recital of sacred texts or oblations to sacred fire all these will be regarded as part of religion. If some expenditure is involved or servants have to be engaged then all of them do not become commercial activity and should be regarded as matter of religion under Article 26 of Constitution of India. In Govindlalji Maharaj vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1638 it is held that such institution enjoys special protection. 28. In Shri Shri Kanyaka Parameswari A. S. Committee and ors. vs. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endownments Deptt. and others AIR 1999 SC 567, the Apex Court has considered the question of appointment of an executive officer for better management of institution under section 27 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act. It is laid down that among the religious institutions denominational institutions enjoy special protection under Article 26 of Constitution therefore before appointing executive officer it is necessary to bear in mind the right under Article 26 of Constitution. It is laid down that among the religious institutions denominational institutions enjoy special protection under Article 26 of Constitution therefore before appointing executive officer it is necessary to bear in mind the right under Article 26 of Constitution. The Apex Court has held that : "9. The law must leave the right of administration to the denomination itself subject to such restrictions and regulations as may be provided by law. But such law if it takes away the right of administration from the hands of the religious denominations altogether and vests it in any other authority, it would violate Article 26(d). 14. It cannot be denied that among the religious institutions denominational institutions stand on a different footing and enjoys special protection under Article 26 of the Constitution. Therefore, while considering the challenge to the appointment of an Executive Officer, it is essential to bear in mind the protection given under Article 26 of the Constitution, which the High Court failed to do. In the circumstances, we are of the view that instead of ourselves going into that, we consider it appropriate to remand the matter to the Division Bench to hear and dispose of the case on that aspect. While accepting the finding, which has not been challenged by the respondents that the appellant-institution is a denomination one, the High Court will decide the legality of the appointment of the Executive Officer particularly in the light of Article 26 of the Constitution and the decisions of this Court referred to earlier." 29. It is clear that it is not proper for Registrar of public trust to impose 8 of Government Officers including President to manage the activities of such a trust which is religious. It is for devotees/Sarbarahkar to manage temple as per rituals, while passing fresh order rights of devotees etc. have to be give due consideration. 30. In the instant case finding has not been given to various aspects. No enquiry has been made. Even it has not been ascertained by the Registrar what are the movable or immovable property, only tentative information was sent, that too by SDM, Gohalpur, Jabalpur. Enquiry should have been made after hearing the "Sarbarahakar" recorded as owner of Survey No. 195, which is movable and immovable property that has not been ascertained properly. It appears that the Government official have virtually tried to usurp the management of trust. Enquiry should have been made after hearing the "Sarbarahakar" recorded as owner of Survey No. 195, which is movable and immovable property that has not been ascertained properly. It appears that the Government official have virtually tried to usurp the management of trust. The devotees, Sarbarahkar, prior committee managing it ought to have been given due place and as a token, representation one or two persons such as Collector or Mayor or their nominee ought to have been taken in the trust. But, naming 8 of the Government officials as "ex-officio" trustees out of 12 that too mentioned in the application itself which was prepared and submitted by one of the Government official, SDM, Gohalpur is not proper. In the matter of such a religious public trust only a token representation of the Government Official or their nominee is enough, they cannot be thrusted to manage and usurp the affairs of a religious public trust of the kind involved in present case. Registrar of Public trust has not applied the mind at all and has accepted the proposal in toto in premeditated manner which was submitted without holding due and proper enquiry. 31. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. Order P/2 is quashed. Let Registrar, Public Trust hear the petitioner and other interested persons and take a decision afresh in the light of findings recorded in this order. No order as to costs.