JUDGMENT : Sujoy Paul, J. 1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-- "In the light of the abovementioned facts and circumstances of the case, entire proceedings in case No. 03/13-14/B-113 (Trust) including order date Nil/Aug/2014 i.e. Annexure-P/4 and show cause notice dated 19.08.2014 Annexure P/1A and order dated 9.03.2015 Annexure P/1 be quashed or alternatively the respondent be directed to dispose the application filed by the petitioner i.e. P/5 first, before proceeded further in the matter." 2. Shri Ankur Mody, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a charitable trust, registered under M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951 (for short, the 'Act'). The Trust was set up with the object of doing public charity. The Trust Deed is filed as Annexure P/3. It is contended that in the year 2006, certain properties of the Trust were sold by the trustee of the Trust in exercise of its power as per clause 10 (n) of the Trust Deed. It is further contended that on the basis of some complaint received behind the back of the petitioner, a case was registered by the respondent against the petitioner. The said case is registered as per section 14 of the Act and resultantly, a show cause notice (Annexure P/4) was issued to the petitioner. On 19.8.2014, the petitioner received the notice (Annexure P-1A). In turn, the petitioner filed an application/reply dated 20.10.2014 (Annexure P/5). Thereafter, the matter was adjourned by the respondents on 27.10.2014, 5.11.2014, 26.12.2014, 12.1.2015, 30.1.2015 and 19.2.2015. Shri Mody submits that adjournments were granted for the reasons solely attributable to the respondent and for no fault on the part of the petitioner. The order sheets showing the same are filed as Annexure P/6. The matter was then fixed on 9.3.2015. On the said date, impugned order, Annexure P/1, is passed, whereby the petitioner was directed to supply necessary informations and documents. 3. Criticizing this order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order is arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. Shri Mody added that section 14 of the Act makes it clear that it has to give way to the conditions of instrument of trust. Since instrument of trust contains a condition, which permits the trustee to sell the property, the impugned action of the respondent is wholly without authority and jurisdiction. Shri Mody added that section 14 of the Act makes it clear that it has to give way to the conditions of instrument of trust. Since instrument of trust contains a condition, which permits the trustee to sell the property, the impugned action of the respondent is wholly without authority and jurisdiction. To bolster this contention, he relied on a judgment of Bombay High Court in Bomi Jal Mistry and others v. Joint Charity Commissioner, dated 27.3.2002, reported in AIR 2002 BOMBAY 342. Shri Mody further submits that the objection of the petitioner regarding authority/jurisdiction of the respondent raised in Annexure P/5 goes to the root of the matter. The said authority is obliged to decide the said objection before proceeding further. He submits that the impugned notice and orders will make it clear that the authority, in fact, has exercised power under section 14 of the Act and, therefore, without deciding the question of competency, the said authority cannot proceed further. By placing reliance on (1970) 3 SCC 119 (D.N. Roy v. State of Bihar), it is contended that if from the averments of notice and impugned order it is clear that power is exercised on a complaint and it falls within the ambit of section 14 of the Act, the respondent cannot justify its order on the basis of any other provision of the Act. Heavy reliance is placed on para 7 of the judgment of D.N. Roy (supra). By placing reliance on IA No. 2258/2015 and IA No. 2251/2015, Shri Mody submits that after filing of this petition also the respondent is acting in a hasty manner. A special audit is directed, which was totally unwarranted. 4. No other point is pressed by Shri Mody. 5. Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent, supported the impugned order. He submits that contention of the petitioner that the action is taken under section 14 of the Act is totally misconceived. To elaborate, Shri Raghuvanshi submits that the show cause notice (Annexure P/1-A) makes it clear that no finding is given by the respondent on the question whether prior permission of the respondent is required before sale of the property by the trustee. To elaborate, Shri Raghuvanshi submits that the show cause notice (Annexure P/1-A) makes it clear that no finding is given by the respondent on the question whether prior permission of the respondent is required before sale of the property by the trustee. On more than one occasion, it is contended by learned Additional Advocate General that since no action has been taken under section 14 of the Act nor any finding in this regard is arrived at, there is no occasion for the petitioner to raise eyebrows in this regard. By placing reliance on (2013) 4 SCC 340 (State of Orisaa and others v. Mesco Steels Limited and another), it is contended that the petition is premature. At this pre-decisional stage, which is a step in process of taking final decision by the competent authority, no interference is warranted. He also submitted that as per Section 22 of the Act, the respondent is competent to seek necessary information/documents from the petitioner. The petitioner being a public trust must provide documents. This is necessary to ensure transparency and fairness in the affairs of the trust. 6. No other point is pressed by Shri Raghuvanshi. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The respondent issued the notice dated 19.8.2014 (Annexure P/1-A). The relevant portion of the same reads as under:-- A plain reading of the aforesaid will show that at the first place, the respondent has stated that in the present case before sale of the property permission is not obtained from Registrar and, therefore, a question arose which needs to be decided. The second portion deals with his direction to provide various documents including sale deeds, prior permission for sale (if obtained), details of the permission etc. The petitioner is further directed to disclose as to how much amount has been received pursuant to the sale in question. Such amount is deposited in which bank. The details of bank account were also asked for. The petitioner is further directed to show as to how this amount arising out of sale is being utilised. The copy of budget of the trust is asked for. In addition, the income-expenditure account, audit report, name of purchasers, their details etc. were asked for. 9. The reproduced portion of Annexure P/1-A makes it clear that it is in two fold. The copy of budget of the trust is asked for. In addition, the income-expenditure account, audit report, name of purchasers, their details etc. were asked for. 9. The reproduced portion of Annexure P/1-A makes it clear that it is in two fold. The first part deals with question of prior permission for the purpose of sale of property, whereas the second portion, numbered as 1 to 5 deals with various informations desired by the respondent. Section 22 of the Act prescribes the power of the Registrar, which reads as under:-- "22. Powers of the Registrar.-- The Registrar shall have powers-- (a) to enter on and inspect or cause to be entered on and inspected any property belonging to a Public trust; (b) to call for or inspect may extract from and proceedings of the trustees of any public trust or any book or account in the possession of or under the control of the trustee; (c) to call for any return, statement, account or report which he may think fit from the trustee or any person connected with a public trust; Provided that in entering upon any property belonging to the public trust the officer making the entry shall give reasonable notice to the trustee and shall have due regard to the religious practices or usages of the trust." 10. It is not the case of the petitioner that under section 22 of the Act, the Registrar is not competent to ask for information and documents. In other words, the competency of Registrar in summoning the documents and certain information is not assailed on the ground that he is not competent to do so under section 22 of the Act. It is assailed on the singular ground that unless he decides the question of prior permission, he is not competent to proceed further. I do not see any merit in this contention. As analyzed above, the notice, Annexure P/1-A, is in two parts. Only first part deals with the question based on interpretation of section 14 in the light of the deed whereas second portion deals with summoning of information and documents etc. A plain reading of section 22 makes it clear that powers of Registrar are very wide and he can very well summon the relevant documents. Only first part deals with the question based on interpretation of section 14 in the light of the deed whereas second portion deals with summoning of information and documents etc. A plain reading of section 22 makes it clear that powers of Registrar are very wide and he can very well summon the relevant documents. Accordingly, on the second part, no interference is warranted and I find force in the argument of Shri Raghuvanshi that being a public trust it is the duty of the petitioner to provide all relevant informations and documents to the statutory authority in order to maintain transparency. It is said that 'sunlight is the best disinfectant'. Meaning thereby if the transparency is maintained, the possibility of arbitrariness, improper activity etc. is automatically ruled out. Thus, I find no illegality in the action of the respondent inasmuch as documents and informations are desired under section 22 of the Act. The bone of contention of Shri Mody is that the respondent cannot proceed further unless he decides the objection of the petitioner (Annexure P/5) in the light of condition of trust deed. This objection is based on the language employed in section 14 of the Act. However, a minute reading of Annexure P/1-A makes it clear that a question arose in the mind of the respondent whether the petitioner's action in selling the land/property without prior permission is in consonance with section 14 of the Act or not. In Annexure P/1-A, no finding or conclusion is drawn by the respondent that the petitioner has violated section 14 of the Act. To this extent, there is no illegality in Annexure P/1-A. The Registrar is competent to examine whether prior permission is required for the purpose of selling the property. The petitioner has already filed his response based on clause 10(n) of the deed. The Registrar is obliged to decide this objection raised by the petitioner if he intends to proceed further to answer the aforesaid question raised by him in Annexure P/1-A. Putting it differently, in Annexure P/1-A the Registrar has stated that a question has arisen about selling of property without obtaining prior permission of Registrar. Accordingly, in my view, interest of justice would be met if Registrar is directed to decide this question after taking into consideration the stand of the petitioner in this regard (Annexure P/5). Accordingly, in my view, interest of justice would be met if Registrar is directed to decide this question after taking into consideration the stand of the petitioner in this regard (Annexure P/5). In the light of contentions advanced by Shri MPS Raghuvanshi, I deem it proper to hold that it will be lawful for the respondent to deal with the objection of the petitioner while answering the question related to prior permission based on section 14 of the Act. Thus, in impugned orders or in the proceedings based on it, nothing shall be read/treated by the respondent, which may amount to a finding/conclusion drawn about the action of the petitioner in selling the property without prior permission. This finding/conclusion can be arrived at only after dealing with the objection raised by the petitioner in this regard, which is based on clause 10(n) of the deed. In nutshell, there is no embargo on the respondent in proceeding against the petitioner in consonance with section 14 of the Act but it shall be his duty to deal with petitioner's objection aforesaid in accordance with law while doing the same. 11. So far the contention of Shri Mody based on the judgment of D.N. Roy (supra) is concerned, in my view, it is bereft of merits. In D.N. Roy (supra), the Government issued suo motu notice. It was put to test and the Apex Court opined that if suo motu powers were required to be exercised, it should have been intimated on facts and on grounds on which basis it is proposed to be exercised. In the present case, the order Annexure P/1-A, in no uncertain terms, makes it clear that powers under section 22 are exercised. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the judgment of D.N. Roy (supra) is of no assistance to the petitioner. The other judgment [Bomi Jal Mistry (supra)] is also of no assistance in the factual matrix of the matter. 12. In the light of aforesaid analysis, in my view, no fault can be found in the action of the respondent in seeking information and summoning the documents. This is in consonance with section 22 of the Act. As per section 16(4) of the Act, the Registrar is competent to direct a special audit of the account of any public trust, whenever in his opinion, such special audit is necessary. This is in consonance with section 22 of the Act. As per section 16(4) of the Act, the Registrar is competent to direct a special audit of the account of any public trust, whenever in his opinion, such special audit is necessary. See, 1965 MPLJ Note 172 (at page 76) (Radheshyam v. Registrar of Public Trust, Narsinghpur). 13. In the light of aforesaid analysis, if the respondent intends to invoke section 14 of the Act and proceed further, it will be lawful for him to deal with the objection of the petitioner, Annexure P/5, before reaching to any conclusion. To this extent, petitioner is protected. So far the directions passed pursuant to section 22 of the Act are concerned, no interference is warranted. 14. Petition is disposed of in view of aforesaid observation in admission stage.