ORDER : Vivek Rusia, J. The petitioner is a registered public trust under the M.P. Public Trust, 1951. Petitioner no. 1 is the President of the Trust and petitioner nos. 2 to 13 are the present trustees and they have authorised petitioner no. 1 to file this present petition. 2. According to the petitioner, Shri Maheshwari Samaj Ramola Trust was formed by trust deed dated 28/12/1958. Later on, it was registered as Public Trust in the year 1972 by the Registrar of the Public Trust and the Collector, Ratlam. Vide order dated 16/06/1997, the Registrar had appointed ten new trustees under section 9 of the M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1951"). In the year 1914, six new trustees were appointed and an information to the said effect was given to the Registrar. Thereafter, two more trustees were appointed and an information to that effect was sent. According to the petitioner, the trust is working properly since 1958 under the provisions of law. 3. That, respondent nos. 2 to 4 filed an application under section 26 of the Act, 1951 on 31/07/2014 before the Registrar, Public Trust "cum" SDO, Ratlam. The said application was registered as case no. 01/B-113(4)/13-14 and notices were issued to the petitioner/Trust for appearance. In pursuance to the notice, the petitioner/Trust appeared through their counsel and thereafter, a detailed reply was also filed denying the allegations made in the application. 4. That on 27/08/2014, the respondent filed an application seeking interim direction before the Registrar. According to the petitioners, a copy of the said application was not supplied to them. Vide order dated 27/08/2014, the Registrar has passed injunction order. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27/08/2014, Writ Petition no. 6927/2014 was filed before this Court, in which, stay was granted. Later on, this Court has set aside the order dated 27/08/2014 by remanding that to the Registrar with a direction to pass afresh order in light of the judgment delivered in the case of Umedi Bhai and others v. Collector of Sihor and others reported in 1969 MPLJ 680. 5. After the remand order, the petitioners appeared before the Registrar by filing a reply to the interim injunction. After hearing both the parties, the Registrar, Public Trust, again passed interim injunction vide order dated 13/04/2015. 5. After the remand order, the petitioners appeared before the Registrar by filing a reply to the interim injunction. After hearing both the parties, the Registrar, Public Trust, again passed interim injunction vide order dated 13/04/2015. Vide interim order dated 13/04/2015, the Registrar has also observed that tenure of the President and other trustees have been over and as per the order dated 01/01/1973, the elections are required to be held, therefore, the Registrar has restrained the President not to conduct any meetings and not operate bank account and further not to pass any regulation in respect of movable and immovable properties. 6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 13/04/2015, the present petition has been filed before this Court. 7. Shri A.K. Chitlale, learned Sr. counsel submits that learned Registrar has travelled beyond his jurisdiction and passed the order contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1951. He has no power to pass the interim order under the Act, 1951. The only power, which is available to the Registrar, is to record his satisfaction and refer the dispute to the Civil Court for adjudication, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside by this Court. 8. Respondent no. 1 has filed return in support of the order of the Registrar and submitted that this is only an interim order, which cannot be challenged by the petitioner in writ petition. Final order is yet to be passed by the Registrar under the provisions of Section 26 of the Act, 1951. 9. Respondent no. 2 to 4 have also filed a reply raising preliminary objections submitting that under the trust deed as well as the order dated 01/01/1972, the tenure of the President and other trustees are over and they are deliberately not conducting the election. It is further submitted that the Registrar has not passed the order under sections 26 and 27 of the Act, 1951. That, final order is yet to be passed by the Registrar. That, the Registrar is competent to pass interim order as the provisions of the CPC are applicable. The Registrar is competent to refer the dispute, if final order under section 26 of the Act is passed. Before passing final order, the Registrar may pass interim order, if occasion so arise, for which, he is not required to refer the dispute to the Civil Court. 10. The Registrar is competent to refer the dispute, if final order under section 26 of the Act is passed. Before passing final order, the Registrar may pass interim order, if occasion so arise, for which, he is not required to refer the dispute to the Civil Court. 10. Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned GA and Shri Tarun Kushwah, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4 have argued that the Registrar has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. He has considered the working of the Trust and the trustees and found that despite the order dated 01/01/1972, they are not conducting any election despite, three years' tenure have expired long back. Since their period has been expired to hold the post of President and trustees, therefore, they have rightly been restrained to operate the trust account and took decision about the movable and immovable properties, hence the impugned order is not liable to be interfered in this writ petition. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 12. That, the M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951 is an Act to regulate and make appropriate provisions for administration of public, religious and charitable trust in Madhya Pradesh. 13. Under section 3 of the Act, 1951. the Collector shall be the Registrar of Public Trust in respect of every public trust and he shall maintain register for public trust. Power has been given to the Registrar under section 5 to conduct enquiry for registration on receipt of application. After completion of enquiry, he shall record his findings with reasons and they are final in nature. Any working trust or person having interest in the public trust or in any property, may challenge such order by way of civil suit. Thereafter, there are other provisions regarding working of the trust. The power of the Registrar is given under section 22 of the Act, 1951 and under section 23 of the Act, 1951, he can pass order in respect of the audit of the trust, which is again liable to be challenged by way of appeal under section 24 of the Act, 1951 before the Civil Court. 14. The power of the Registrar is given under section 22 of the Act, 1951 and under section 23 of the Act, 1951, he can pass order in respect of the audit of the trust, which is again liable to be challenged by way of appeal under section 24 of the Act, 1951 before the Civil Court. 14. The power has also been given to the Registrar under section 26 of the Act, 1951 to inquire about the working of the trust, if original body of the trust has failed or the property is not being properly managed or administered and any direction is necessary for administration of public trust, either suo-moto or on an application and after giving opportunity to the working trustees during the said trust, to apply to the Court for directions within time specified. If the trustees fails to make an application or there is no trustee, then the Registrar himself can make an application to the Court. On receipt of such application, the Court shall make or cause to be make such enquiry under section 27 of the Act, 1951 and can pass the order as provided under sub-section 2 of section 27 of the Act, 1951. The powers, which has been given to the Registrar under the Act, 1951 are under sections 5, 6, 7, 9, 22, 23 of the Act, 1951. Accordingly, he has to work under the said provisions. In the present case, the powers given to him under section 26 of the Act, 1951 is to be examined. 15. That, respondent nos. 2 to 4 have filed an application under sections 26 and 27 of the Act, 1951 alleging that the three years' tenure of the Trust is over and no election is being held despite the order dated 01/01/1972. The said application was filed along with an application for stay. On the basis that, the Registrar has registered a case vide order dated 31/07/2014 and issued notices to the petitioners. Initially, interim order was passed without hearing the petitioners. That was set aside by this Court, thereafter, remand impugned order dated 13/04/2015 was passed. This order was not passed under section 26 of the Act, 1951, but was passed in the nature of injunction order. The final order under section 26 of the Act, 1951 is yet to be passed by the Registrar. That was set aside by this Court, thereafter, remand impugned order dated 13/04/2015 was passed. This order was not passed under section 26 of the Act, 1951, but was passed in the nature of injunction order. The final order under section 26 of the Act, 1951 is yet to be passed by the Registrar. The question for consideration in this case is, whether the Registrar has power to grant injunction under the Act, 1951. 16. As discussed above, the limited powers were given to the Registrar under the Act, 1951, in which there is no power to grant temporary injunction. The application which was moved before the Registrar was under section 26 and 27 of the Act, 1951. Under section 26 of the Act, 1951, the Registrar, only on application or suo-moto can direct the trustee or himself make an application to the Court to decide the issue, whether the trust has failed to achieve his object or not being properly managed or administered or any direction is necessary for administration of the public trust. The Registrar is only required to record his satisfaction to that effect. Even power of adjudication has not been granted under section 26 of the Act, 1951. After summarary enquiry, he can refer his satisfaction and refer the dispute to the Civil Court. 17. Neither under section 26 of the Act, 1951 nor any other section, power of injunction has been granted to the Registrar. It is settled law that the power which is not conferred on it by the statute either by way of the Act or Rules, the same cannot be exercised, even inherent power has not been granted to the Registrar. The power, which has been granted to issue any direction as the nature of the case may require, is only granted to the Court under section 27(2)(f) of the Act, 1951. 18. In support of his contentions, Shri A.K. Chitale, learned Sr. counsel has cited the judgment delivered in the case of Umedi Bhai and others v. Collector of Sihor and others reported in 1969 MPLJ 680. in which, in para 4, it has been held that the Registrar has no inherent power to issue injunction as the Act, 1951 does not confer any power. Para- 4 is reproduced below: 4. counsel has cited the judgment delivered in the case of Umedi Bhai and others v. Collector of Sihor and others reported in 1969 MPLJ 680. in which, in para 4, it has been held that the Registrar has no inherent power to issue injunction as the Act, 1951 does not confer any power. Para- 4 is reproduced below: 4. With regard to the injunction order, we are of the opinion that the Registrar had no inherent power to issue an injunction against the decree holder to execute his decree. The proceedings under the Act before the Registrar are not judicial proceedings. The Act doe not confer any power upon the Registrar to issue injunctions to any person. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have not been applied to the proceedings before the Registrar except to the extent provided under section 28 of the Act and these matters relate only to proof of affidavits, summoning and attendance of persons, compelling the production of documents and issue of commissions. This restricted application of the Code of Civil Procedure necessarily implies that the power to issue injunctions is not vested in the Registrar. The Registrar not being a Court, he cannot exercise inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure or otherwise. We are therefore of opinion that the Registrar was not right in issuing the injunction under dated the 22nd March 1963 which was hereby quash. 19. Shri Tarun Kushwah, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4 submits that in the case of Umedi Bhai and others (supra), the decree granted by the Court was stayed by the Registrar, but in the present case, the facts are different where the trustees are working despite their tenure has been over, therefore, they were restrained by the Registrar not to operate bank account and hold meetings, therefore, the facts of the case of Umedi Bhai and others (supra) are different from the present case. That, in para 4 of the said judgment, the Division Bench has finally held that the proceedings under the Act, 1951 before the Registrar are not judicial proceedings and the Act, 1951 does not conferred any power upon the Registrar to issue injunction to any person. That, in para 4 of the said judgment, the Division Bench has finally held that the proceedings under the Act, 1951 before the Registrar are not judicial proceedings and the Act, 1951 does not conferred any power upon the Registrar to issue injunction to any person. The Court has also held that, the provisions of the CPC have not been applied to the proceedings before the Registrar except to the extend provided under section 28 of the Act, 1951. Even otherwise, as per the powers given to the Registrar under section 26 of the Act, 1951, by which he cannot pass final order, he is required to refer only to the Civil Court, therefore, he cannot pass even interim order. 20. In the present case, nature of the interim order, which has been passed by the Registrar even cannot be passed by way of final order under section 26 of the Act, 1951, therefore, the Authority or the Court which cannot pass final order of particular nature, cannot pass even interim order. 21. The Registrar, Public Trust is a creature of statute and derives power from the express provisions of the Act, 1951. The Registrar has not been given power to grant interim relief. Hence, the power which has not been given expressly by statute cannot be exercised. I find support from the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Hitendra pathak v. Achyut Kashinath Karekar reported in (2011 ) 9 SCC 541; Guljarilal Agrawal v. ACC reported in 1996(1) SCC 590 as also in the case of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das reported in (1994) 4 SCC 225 , of which, para 43 and 44 are relevant, which are reproduced below : 5: What is the scope of Section 14 of the Act? 43. 43. The said section reads as under: "(1) If, after the proceeding conducted under Section 13, the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to take one or more of the following things, namely : (a) to remove the defect pointed out by the appropriate laboratory from the goods in question; (b) to replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect; (c) to return to the complainant the price, or, as the case may be, the charges paid by the complainant; (d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party. (2) Every order made by the District Forum under sub-section (1) shall be signed by all the members constituting it and, if there is any difference of opinion, the order of the majority of the members constituting it shall be the order of the District Forum. (3) Subject to the foregoing provisions, the procedure relating to the conduct of the meetings of the District Forum, its sittings and other matters shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government." 44. A careful reading of the above discloses that there is no power under the Act to grant any interim relief of (sic or) even an ad interim relief. Only a final relief could be granted. If the jurisdiction of the Forum to grant relief is confined to the four clauses+ mentioned under Section 14, it passes our comprehension as to how an interim injunction could ever be granted disregarding even the balance of convenience. At the most, the Registrar could have directed the trust or the applicant to approach Civil Court for obtaining interim relief. 22. Therefore, in view of the above, the impugned order dated 13/04/2015 deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The Registrar, Public Trust, Ratlam is directed to pass an order under section 26 of the Act, 1951 within a period of 15 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. C.C. as per rules.