Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 825 (MP)

Trust Mandir Shri Ram Janki Ji v. State of M. P.

2020-08-21

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2020
ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 26.8.2017 passed by District Judge, Gwalior in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 90/2017 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as not maintainable and further against the order dated 1.7.2016 passed by Registrar, Public Trust Cum Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Lashkar, Distt. Gwalior by which the application filed by Mahant Shri Ramsewak Das Guru Mahant Late Shri Rameshwar Das Ji for recording of his name as Head Trustee after the death of Shri Ramsewak Das has been rejected. 2. Challenging the orders passed by the Registrar, Public Trust Act as well as by the District Judge, Gwalior, it is submitted that the District Judge, Gwalior after holding that the appeal filed by the petitioner was not maintainable, should not have decided the appeal on merits. Further, it is submitted that since, the powers of Registrar, Public Trust were not delegated to the Sub-Divisional Officer by Notification under section 34-A of Public Trusts Act, but were delegated by Work Distribution Memo, therefore, the S.D.O. (Revenue) Lashkar, Distt. Gwalior, did not have power to entertain and decide the application filed by the petitioner. To buttress his contention, the Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Santosh Singh Rathore v. State of M.P. and others reported in 2020(1) RN 85 = 2020(2) MPLJ 530 . 3. Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the intervenor that the petition itself is not maintainable, because, the same has been filed by a Public Trust, which is not a legal entity. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. In the case of Rajaram Bhinwaniwala v. Nandkishore reported in 1975 JLJ 475 = 1975 MPLJ 419 this Court has held that a Public Trust is not a juristic person. It has no corporate personality. The trust may not engage in juristic acts and be sued. A suit for the enforcement of rights on behalf of a Public Trust, has to be brought by all the trustee acting together. The present petition has been filed on behalf of a Public Trust. It has no corporate personality. The trust may not engage in juristic acts and be sued. A suit for the enforcement of rights on behalf of a Public Trust, has to be brought by all the trustee acting together. The present petition has been filed on behalf of a Public Trust. Thus, in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Rajaram Bhinwaniwala (supra), it is held that the petition filed by a Public Trust is not maintainable as the same has not been filed by all the trustees or by one trustee with the approval of all the trustees. 6. Now the question is that whether this Court should dismiss the petition on this ground only or should take suo moto cognizance in the light of legal as well as factual position. 7. This Court in the case of Santosh Singh Rathore (supra), has held that the powers of Registrar, Public Trust cannot be delegated by issuing an office work distribution memo and it can be done only by issuing a notification under section 34-A of M.P. Public Trust Act. 8. The petitioner has filed I.A. No. 3261 of 2020 for disposal of the writ petition on the ground that powers of Registrar, Public Trust were delegated to the S.D.O. (Revenue) Lashkar, Distt. Gwalior by work distribution memo and not by notification under section 34-A of M.P. Public Trust Act, therefore, the S.D.O. (Revenue), Lashkar, Distt. Gwalior, did not have jurisdiction to exercise the powers of Registrar, M.P. Public Trusts Act. 9. The State as well as the intervenor have not disputed the copies of the work distribution memos filed along with the aforesaid application. Accordingly, it is clear that the powers of Registrar, Public Trust were not delegated by a notification under section 34-A of M.P. Public Trust Act, but were given by work distribution memo. Thus, in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Santosh Singh Rathore, it is held that the S.D.O. (Revenue) Lashkar, Distt. Gwalior, did not have jurisdiction to exercise powers of the Registrar, Public Trust. Accordingly, it is held that the order of the S.D.O. (Revenue) Lashkar, Distt. Gwalior in the capacity of Registrar, Public Trust was without jurisdiction and thus it is a nullity. 10. Gwalior, did not have jurisdiction to exercise powers of the Registrar, Public Trust. Accordingly, it is held that the order of the S.D.O. (Revenue) Lashkar, Distt. Gwalior in the capacity of Registrar, Public Trust was without jurisdiction and thus it is a nullity. 10. It is next contended by the Counsel for the intervenor, that since, the above mentioned ground was neither raised before the S.D.O. (Revenue) Lashkar, Distt. Gwalior nor before the District Judge Gwalior, therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise this objection at this stage. 11. Considered the above mentioned submission made by the Counsel for the intervenor. 12. The Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Agro Foods v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 748 has held as under : 17. ... Where an authority making order lacks inherent jurisdiction, such order would be without jurisdiction, null, non est and void ab initio as defect of jurisdiction of an authority goes to the root of the matter and strikes at its very authority to pass any order and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of the parties. (See Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan.)....... 13. The Supreme Court in the case of Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 507 has held as under : 18. It is settled law that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction on the subject-matter or on the grounds on which the decree made which goes to the root of its jurisdiction or lacks inherent jurisdiction is a coram non judice. A decree passed by such a Court is a nullity and is non est. Its invalidity can be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced or is acted upon as a foundation for a right, even at the stage of execution or in collateral proceedings. The defect of jurisdiction strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass decree which cannot be cured by consent or waiver of the party. 14. Therefore, it is clear that the question of jurisdiction which goes to the root of the matter cannot be waived and can be raised at any stage. 15. Now the only question is that whether this Court should exercise its suo moto powers to quash the proceedings or not? 16. 14. Therefore, it is clear that the question of jurisdiction which goes to the root of the matter cannot be waived and can be raised at any stage. 15. Now the only question is that whether this Court should exercise its suo moto powers to quash the proceedings or not? 16. The Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Singh v. State of Chhatisgarh reported in (2017) 3 SCC 330 has held as under : 23. Article 227 of the Constitution reads as follows:.... The aforesaid Article confers power of superintendence on the High Court over the Courts and tribunals within the territory of the State. The High Court has the jurisdiction and the authority to exercise suo motu power. 24. In Achutananda Baidya v. Prafullya Kumar Gayen9 a two-Judge Bench while dealing with the power of superintendence of the High Court under Article 227 has opined that the power of superintendence of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is not confined to administrative superintendence only but such power includes within its sweep the power of judicial review. The power and duty of the High Court under Article 227 is essentially to ensure that the Courts and tribunals, inferior to the High Court, have done what they were required to do. Law is well settled by various decisions of this Court that the High Court can interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution in cases of erroneous assumption or acting beyond its jurisdiction, refusal to exercise jurisdiction, error of law apparent on record as distinguished from a mere mistake of law, arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion, a patent error in procedure, arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material, or resulting in manifest injustice. 17. Thus, it is held that although the petition filed by the petitioner, a Public Trust is not maintainable as a Public Trust is not a juristic personality, but since, the S.D.O. (Revenue) Lashkar, Distt. Gwalior did not have jurisdiction to exercise the powers of Registrar, Public Trust, accordingly, this Court suo-moto takes cognizance of fact of lack of jurisdiction of S.D.O. (Revenue), Lashkar and therefore, the order dated 11.7.2016 passed by S.D.O. (Revenue) Lashkar, Distt. Gwalior in Case No. 03/2015-16/B-113(4) is hereby quashed. 18. Similarly, the order dated 26.8.2017 passed by District Judge, Gwalior in Misc. Gwalior in Case No. 03/2015-16/B-113(4) is hereby quashed. 18. Similarly, the order dated 26.8.2017 passed by District Judge, Gwalior in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 90/2017 is also hereby quashed so far as it relates to findings on merits. 19. The application in question be placed before the Collector/Registrar Public Trust, Gwalior for its adjudication afresh on its merits without getting prejudiced/influenced by any of the findings given by any authority/Court. With aforesaid directions, the petition is finally disposed of.