CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals are directed against the order of the learned single judge passed in W. P. nos. 29173-78/1999 dated December 1, 2000. The facts in these appeals are as follows: the Karnataka state road transport corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'ksrtc') and the employees union entered into a settlement dated July 27, 1970. On the basis of this settlement, a trust was created ; under the registered trust deed dated July 22, 1974. The main object of the trust is to render monetary help to members on retirement due to superannuation or medical grounds or to the nominees of the deceased member. To become a member of the trust, it is necessary that one should be an employee of the k. s. r. t. c. the Constitution of the trust provides for eight persons as trustees, out of which two shall be nominated by the ksrtc, five shall be representatives of the workmen and the general manager, k. s. r. t. c. shall be the chairman. ( 2 ) ON the allegation of misappropriation of money by the then secretary of the trust and also on the allegation of misappropriation of the fund, the state government issued a notification dated August 10, 1999 directing the director (security and vigilance), Bangalore metropolitan transport corporation, to take over the management of death-aim- retirement benefit fund of the corporation created under the trust deed dated July 22, 1974 from the board of trustees and to administer the said fund. This order was challenged in the writ petitions by the trust represented by its secretary and other trustees, on several grounds. ( 3 ) ONE of the grounds raised in the writ petitions is that the state government has no power to take over the management of the trust under Section 37 of the road transport Corporation Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1950 ). No doubt, there are certain allegations of misappropriation and misapplication of the fund against the secretary of the trust. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants herein contended that since there are allegations against the secretary, who represented the trust, the single judge should have declined to interfere with the impugned Order, as the hands of the person, who represented the trust, were not clean. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants herein contended that since there are allegations against the secretary, who represented the trust, the single judge should have declined to interfere with the impugned Order, as the hands of the person, who represented the trust, were not clean. No doubt, there are certain allegations against the secretary who represent the trust, but no finding has been recorded on the said allegations by any competent authority or the court, so as to hold that the hands of the secretary are not clean. Even assuming that there were allegations, the writ petitions were not only by the trust represented by the secretary, but also by the other trustees. If that is so, assuming that the hands of the secretary are not clean, the writ petitions cannot be thrown out as there are no allegations against the other trustees of the trust. ( 4 ) NOW, the question that arise for consideration in these writ appeals is:- whether the state government has power to take over the management of the trust in exercise of power under Section 37 of the act 1950? ( 5 ) IT is submitted by the learned Advocate general on behalf of the state that since the ksrtc is assisting the trust in its management, as it is one of the functions of the corporation, the state has got power to take over the management of the trust in view of several allegations of misappropriation and mismanagement of the funds of the trust by the trustees. ( 6 ) FROM the records it is seen that there were allegations of misappropriation by the then secretary one Mr. Sundarraj. But so far as that employee is concerned, he has been removed from the post. It is stated that a criminal case has been filed against him and that it is pending consideration. There are some allegations against the present secretary also. The main allegation against the present secretary is that he has invested large sums of money in a co-operative bank without any authority. In so far as this contention is concerned, Sri narasimhan, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, submits that as per the terms of the trust deed money can be invested in any of the banks and therefore, this allegation is baseless. In so far as this contention is concerned, Sri narasimhan, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, submits that as per the terms of the trust deed money can be invested in any of the banks and therefore, this allegation is baseless. We do not propose to consider this aspect of the matter since any finding recorded by us may affect further steps that may be taken either by the ksrtc or by the secretary, who is now representing the trust. ( 7 ) IN order to consider whether the state has power to take over the management of the trust, it is useful to refer to certain Provisions of the act 1950. Section 19 (1) of the act 1950 reads as follows: 19. Powers of corporation- (1) subject to the Provisions of this Act, a corporation shall have power- (a) to operate road transport service in the state and in any exempted area (sic); (b) to provide for any ancillary service; (c) to provide for its employees suitable conditions of service including fair wages, establishment of provident fund, living accommodation, places for rest and recreation and other amenities; (d) to authorise the issue of passes to its employees and other persons either free of cost or at concessional rates and such conditions as it may deem fit to impose; (e) to authorise the grant of refund in respect of unused tickets and concessional passes. Section 36 reads as follows: 36. Power to order inquiries.- (1) the state government, with a view to satisfy itself that the powers and duties of a corporation established by that government are being exercised and performed properly, may, at any time, appoint any person or persons to make inquiries into all or any of the activities of the corporation and to report to the state government the result of such inquiries. (2) the corporation shall give to the person or persons so appointed all facilities for the proper conduct of the inquiries and shall produce before, or furnish to the person or persons any document, account or information in the possession of the corporation which such person or persons demand for the purposes of the inquiries. Section 37 reads as follows: 37. Section 37 reads as follows: 37. Power to control a party of the undertaking of a corporation- (1) if on receipt of the report of any inquiry held under Section 36 or otherwise, the state government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the public interest, the state government may, by notification in the official gazette, authorise any person to take over from the corporation, and so long as that notification is in force, to administer in accordance with such directions as may be issued from time to time by the state government such part of the undertaking of the corporation as may be specified in the notification, and any person so authorised may, for the purpose of so administering the said part of the undertaking exercise all or any of the powers of the corporation or of any officer of the corporation under this Act, issue such directions as he thinks fit to the (officers or other employees) of the corporation and employ any outside agency. (2) the state government may by such notification direct that all charges and expenses incurred by the person so authorised together with such remuneration as the state government may allow from time to time to such person shall be paid within such time as may be fixed by the state government from the fund of the corporation, and if the expenses are not so paid, the state government may make an order directing the persons having the custody of that fund to pay to the person so authorised such expenses in priority to any other charges against such fund and he shall, so far as the funds to the credit of the corporation admit, comply with the order of the state government. (3) every notification issued under this Section together with a report on the circumstances leading to its issue shall be laid before the legislature of the state, as soon as may be, after it is issued. ( 8 ) SECTION 19 (l) (c)of the act 1950 provides that the corporation shall have power to provide for its employees suitable conditions of service including fair wages, establishment of provident fund, living accommodation, places for rest and recreation and other amenities. ( 8 ) SECTION 19 (l) (c)of the act 1950 provides that the corporation shall have power to provide for its employees suitable conditions of service including fair wages, establishment of provident fund, living accommodation, places for rest and recreation and other amenities. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that providing death-cum-retirement benefit fund (drbf) to its employees is one of the functions of the corporation covered under Section 19 (1) (c) of the act and that therefore, the corporation has got every power to take over the management under Section 37 read with Section 36 of the act. The object of the trust is to provide drbf from out of the fund belonging to it, but to this fund. Corporation has not contributed any amount. The corporation has only provided the premises for the purposes of carrying on the activities of the trust. Further, Section 19 (l) (c) of the act 1950 also does not cover the payment of drbf from out of the fund belonging to the trust. If that is so, it cannot be said that the trust is a part of the corporation. ( 9 ) SECTION 2 (b) of the act 1950 defines the word 'corporation' which means a road transport corporation established under Section 3 of the act 1950. The trust is not a corporation established under Section 3 of the act 1950, but on the other hand it is a trust created with the object of providing drbf to its members. Section 36 confers power on the state government to make inquiry if it is of the view that the powers and duties of the corporation established by the state government are not being exercised and performed by the corporation. ( 10 ) UNDER Section 36 (2) of the act 1950, the corporation shall provide all facilities to the person appointed to hold an inquiry. Section 37 (1) of the act 1950 provides that on receipt of the report of the inquiry held under Section 36 of the act 1950 or otherwise if the state government is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest to take over the administration of the corporation, it may issue a notification to that effect. Section 37 (1) of the act 1950 provides that on receipt of the report of the inquiry held under Section 36 of the act 1950 or otherwise if the state government is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest to take over the administration of the corporation, it may issue a notification to that effect. Under Section 37 (2) of the act 1950, the state government has to meet all charges and expenses incurred by the person so authorised from the fund of the corporation. From these Provisions it is clear that the state government may take over the administration of the corporation or part of the corporation, if it is satisfied that there is no proper administration of the corporation by the board. ( 11 ) LEARNED Advocate general was unable to show any material to hold that the trust is a part of the corporation. Even otherwise, since the trust has been created as per the trust cited, it cannot be treated as a corporation or a part of the corporation. If that is so, the impugned notification issued by the state government is without any authority of law. Therefore, in our considered view, the single judge is right in holding that the impugned notification is without jurisdiction. In the said view of the matter, we do not propose to consider other points raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. ( 12 ) THERE are certain allegations as against one Sri nagaraj, who is the secretary representing the trust. One of the qualification required to become a member of the trust is that he should be an employee of the ksrtc. Admittedly, Sri nagaraj has been dismissed from service by the ksrtc. If that is so, he has ceased to be a member of the trust. But, the trust by its resolution has appointed Sri s. Nagaraj as the secretary of the trust. From the records it is seen that there are certain allegations against Sri s. Nagaraj. If that is so, in the larger interest, keeping in view the interest of the members of the trust, it is just and necessary that a person having clean record must be appointed as a secretary. From the records it is seen that there are certain allegations against Sri s. Nagaraj. If that is so, in the larger interest, keeping in view the interest of the members of the trust, it is just and necessary that a person having clean record must be appointed as a secretary. If that is so, keeping in view the interest of the trust, we are of the view that it is desirable not to continue s. Nagaraj as the secretary of the trust. ( 13 ) FROM the recitals of the trust deed it is seen that the chairman of the trust is the general manager of the ksrtc. Apart from the chairman, two persons are to be nominated as trustees by the ksrtc. It is submitted that for many consecutive meetings, the chairman and two nominated members failed to attend. If these three persons do not attend the meetings of the trust and they dp not take required interest in the administration of the trust, it is just and appropriate either for the ksrtc or the state government to issue necessary direction to them to attend the meetings of the trust keeping in view the interest of the outgoing employees of the ksrtc. ( 14 ) THOUGH the learned counsel appearing for state and the ksrtc had brought to our notice several allegations against the secretary, we do not propose to say one way or the other, since it is open for the trustees to take appropriate action if there is any such misappropriation or mismanagement of the funds of the trust. ( 15 ) IN the result, we pass the following order: (i) writ appeals are dismissed; (ii) however, the trust is directed to appoint a person of clean record to the post of secretary in place of Sri s. Nagaraj as observed in the body of the order. --- *** --- .