ORDER 1. Heard on I.A.No.6317/2015, an application for substitution of the name of the present President on account of the death of Shri Harihar Sahay, who allegedly died on 5.8.2015. 2. This application has been opposed by the respondents No.3 and 4 by filing their specific reply and it is submitted that no trust could have been created in relation to aukaf property in terms of the provisions contained in section 36 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Act of 1951') and, therefore, such application is not maintainable. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Mandir Shri Ramjanki (Kanoongo) is being maintained by the Kayasth Community since time immemorial and a trust has also been authorized by the said community, which is registered as public trust. It is submitted that after death of the President Shri Harihar Sahay who died on 5.8.2015, a meeting of the Trust was held on 17.8.2015 and in the aforesaid meeting the President namely Shri Gopal Shrivastava s/o Shri Jwala Prasad Shrivastava, was appointed as President of the said Trust and also authorized some resolution by the Trust to contest the present case and, therefore, his name be substituted in place of the name of the present President. 4. Learned counsel for the State as well as other respondents opposed such substitution. 5. It is apparent from the provisions contained in section 25(1) of the Act of 1951 that where a public trust is under the management of a Board of Trustees, the working trustee shall, as soon as a vacancy occurs in the Board, inform the Registrar of such vacancy and the time within and the manner in which he proposes to fill the same. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that no such intimation was given to the Registrar about occurrence of a vacancy of death of Shri Harihar Sahay, who has filed this petition. 7. Thus, it is apparent that without mandatory compliance of provisions contained in section 25(1) of the Act of 1951, no vacancy could have been filled up by the working trustees by appointing Shri Gopal Shrivastava as a trustee and President in the meeting held on 17.8.2015 and, therefore, appointment of Shri Gopal Shrivastava is not valid in the eyes of law. Therefore, this application for substitution of the name of the present President is not maintainable in view of the mandatory provisions contained in section 25 of the Act of 1951 and thus, the application deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed. 8. Heard on writ petition. 9. Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 12.3.2010 passed by the SDO (Revenue), Gohad, District Bhind in exercise of powers conferred on him as Registrar of Public Trust alleging that the Registrar of Public Trust has exceeded his jurisdiction and by issuing the order Annexure P-1 the Registrar has demonstrated his intention to create a trust and no opportunity of hearing was furnished to the real trustees of the Public Trust namely Shri Ramjanki (Kanoongo) Mandir, and only took into account the conviction of Shri Sanjay Shrivastava, who was appointed for a short period as President of the Trust. 10. It is further submitted that since there is a condition in the bylaws of the trust that a convicted person cannot remain the trustee and least the President of the Trust, therefore, as soon as Shri Sanjay Shrivastava was convicted, Shri Harihar Sahay was appointed as trustee and this aspect has not been taken into consideration by the Registrar of Public Trust. It is also submitted that order of Registrar is without jurisdiction and against the principal of natural justice, inasmuch as the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In this background, it is submitted that the Court may be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 12.3.2010 passed by SDO (Revenue), Gohad. 11. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State submits that the petitioner has no locus to file the present petition. It is contended that there were several complaints against the President of the petitioner/trust and these allegations of financial irregularities were inquired into before passing the impugned order which is not only a speaking order but is an order passed within the authority of the Registrar of Public Trust, as has been bestowed on him under the provisions of the Act of 1951. It is also submitted that the resolution dated 6.10.2017 (Annexure P-2) has no legal entity, inasmuch as the petitioner constituted a trust consisting of his own family members as trustees and it has not been registered by the Registrar of the Public Trust. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed after giving categorical findings in respect of the management of the Public Trust and those findings are within the domain of the Registrar and have not been challenged by the petitioner. 12. Respondent No. 3 submits that as per the record, temple property belongs to Aukaf and revenue entities also show that the Collector is the manager of the said property and since the property belongs to Aukaf Department, no trust could have been created under section 36 of the Act of 1951 and the provisions of the said act are not applicable on the said temple. It is also submitted that even if the provision of the Act of 1951 are considered to be applicable, then as per section 15 of the Act of 1951, a duty is casted on the trust to maintain accounts of the trust properly and when there were complaints of irregularities and illegalities, then the SDO (Registrar Public Trust) inquired into such irregularities and after inquiry, action has been taken. It is also submitted that respondent No. 3 on behalf of general public comprising of all the castes had made an application to the SDO submitting that petitioner is acting only on behalf of Kayastha Samaj who are considering the temple to be their own property and its income is being used for their own vested interest and then a Panchnama was prepared consisting of several villagers and opined that a trust comprising members of all the community be constituted and therefore on the basis of inquiry report contained in Annexure R-5-3 action was taken by the SDO. 13. On behalf of respondent No. 4 Shri Hariom Pujari, it is submitted that Shri Ramjanki (Kanoongo) Mandir of Mau Tahsil Gohad, District Bhind is in existence for more than 200 years and it was constructed by public at large and members of different community of Mau Tahsil Gohad District Bhind. 13. On behalf of respondent No. 4 Shri Hariom Pujari, it is submitted that Shri Ramjanki (Kanoongo) Mandir of Mau Tahsil Gohad, District Bhind is in existence for more than 200 years and it was constructed by public at large and members of different community of Mau Tahsil Gohad District Bhind. It is submitted that affairs of said temple including maintenance is being managed by the respondent No. 4 from the agricultural produce and approximately 154 bigha of agricultural land is attached to the said temple. It is further submitted that since respondent No. 4 is a Pujari, therefore, he has a right to oppose the illegal action of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the said temple is an aukaf temple and for the better management of the temple erstwhile kingdom had granted a land as a muafi to the Devasthan and thereafter the Aukaf Muafi Department is managing the temple and it is the property of the said temple, inasmuch as an entry has been made as Milkiyat Sarkar Shri Ramjanki (Ramchand Ji) through Pujari Hariom Government Leasee Aukaf Department Manager Collector District Bhind. Since the overall control is as per the Muafi law and the Muafi Department is in control of the said temple. As per the provisions contained in section 36 of the Act of 1951, the petitioner was not entitled to create a trust. It is also submitted that though the act of SDO is against the interest of the Pujari, who is required to manage the property of Muafi but he has no objection if the Muafi land is controlled by the Muafi Department which is mandate of the law. He has supported the order dated 12.3.2010 passed by the SDO. 14. As far as the impugned order is concerned, it is apparent that such order of the Registrar has been passed in exercise of the powers conferred in the Registrar under the provisions of sections 22 and 23 of the Act of 1951. Such act of the Registrar include the decision as is contained in Annexure P-1 is amenable to an appeal as is provided under section 24 of the Act of 1951. Section 2(1) of the Act defines the Court to mean the principle civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district. Such act of the Registrar include the decision as is contained in Annexure P-1 is amenable to an appeal as is provided under section 24 of the Act of 1951. Section 2(1) of the Act defines the Court to mean the principle civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district. Therefore, the petitioner if has any grievance against the impugned order, then there exists a statutory remedy of appeal under section 24 of the Act of 1951 and thus on this ground also the present petition is not maintainable. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition fails on two counts. First, there exists an alternative statutory remedy of appeal to the Civil Court as defined under section 2(1) of the Act of 1951 and secondly, since the application for substitution of the present President has been rejected by this court on the ground that it is an admitted position that there was no compliance of the provisions of section 25(1) of the Act of 1951 in regard to fill up of the vacancy of the President, which had occurred due to death of Shri Harihar Sahay. Thus, the petition fails and dismissed.