JUDGMENT : Sanjay Dwivedi, J. Since learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the contesting respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are ready to argue the case finally, it is accordingly heard finally. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 08.05.2020 (Annexure P/1) whereby the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Registrar, Public Trust, Khandwa has done nothing, but, issued certain direction to the petitioner-trust on an application filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 26 and 27 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 08.01.2021 whereby the Registrar, Public Trust, exceeding its jurisdiction has entirely reviewed its own order dated 08.05.2020. 2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioner is a public trust duly registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act of 1951'). The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed an application under Section 26 and 27 of the Act of 1951 before the Registrar, Public Trust stating that they are the journalists and social workers and working for the benefit of the trust. In the application, they have pointed out certain irregularities committed by the management of the petitioner-trust while managing the property of the trust, which, according to them, runs in crores. It is also alleged by them that no regular audit of the accounts of the trust is being done and the audit reports are also not being kept in the record properly. 3. The petitioner opposed the application filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by filing reply. 4. The Registrar, Public Trust, by order dated 08.05.2020, virtually rejected the application, however, directed the office bearers of the petitioner-trust that in the interest of trust they would conduct the activities of the trust with the consensus of the trustees, duly maintain the record of income and expenses of the trust and conduct audit of the same, conduct the meeting of the trust from time to time after calling all trusties and determine the agenda in the meeting and submit the details of meeting and also the income and expenses of the trust in every three months. 5. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-trust moved an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating therein that the direction issued by the Registrar, Public Trust is contrary to law, as the same cannot be done by him exercising powers provided under Section 26 of the Act. In the review application, the petitioner prayed that from the order dated 08.05.2020 only the directions issued by the Registrar to the petitioner-trust be deleted, which are as under:- ^^ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk yafcr ;kfpdk esa fn;s x, LFkxu esa U;kfl;ksa dks ;Fkkor~ j[kk x;k gS] U;klfgr dh xfrfof/k;ksa ds lapkyu esa dksà LFkxu ugha gS] vr,o vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd xksnM+ v[kkM+k U;kl ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og U;kl ds fgr esa U;kl dh xfrfof/k;ksa leLr U;kfl;ksa dh lgefr ls lapkfyr djsaA fof/kor~ vk;&O; dk fglkc j[ksa ,oa vkWfMV djkà tk,A U;kl dh cSBd le;≤ ij vk;ksftr dh tk;sa ,oa cSBd esa leLr U;kfl;ksa dks vkgqr fd;k tkdj ,tsaMk fu/kkZfjr fd;k tk,A U;kl dh leLr cSBdksa ds dk;Zokgh fooj.k] vk;&O; dh laiw.kZ tkudkjh izR;sd 3 ekg esa bl dk;kZy; dks voyksdu gsrq izLrqr djsaA** However, the Registrar by order 08.01.2021 (Annexure P/2) decided the review application finally and referred the matter to the District and Sessions Judge, Khandwa proposing the issues for determination. The directions issued by the Registrar exercising powers under Section 26 of the Act are as under:- ^^yksd U;kl vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 26&27 ds rgr ekuuh; ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh'k egksn; [k.Mok dks U;kl ds laca/k esa fuEu fcanqvksa ij fofu'p; fd;k tkuk izLrkfor gSa& 1- Jh ?ku';keiqjh dks xksnM+ v[kkM+k U;kl ea/kkrk dh dk;Zdkjh U;klh@v/;{k ,oa U;klh in ls i`Fkd fd;k tkdj] orZeku U;klhx.k esa ls fdlh Hkh U;klh dks varfje dk;Zdkjh U;klh fu;qDr tkdj mls izca/k O;oLFkk nh tkosaA ;k 2- xksnM+ v[kkM+k U;kl iz-d- 329 U;kl dks lekIr dj xksnM+ v[kkM+k dh ifjlaifRr;ksa ds fof/kor~ la/kkj.k ,oa lapkyu gsrq uohu U;kl ds xBu fd;s tkus dh vuq'kalk dh tkrh gSA orZeku U;kl lekIr djrs gq, uohu U;kl dh uohu Ldhe ck;ykWt rS;kj djk, tkdj uohu U;kl xBu fd;s tkus dh funsZ'k fn, tk,aA ekuuh; ftyk U;k;ky; ls fuosnu gS fd vU; funsZ'k tkjh djuk tks ekeys dh izd`fr ds vuqlkj visf{kr gks ,sls funsZ'k tkjh fd;s tkus dh vuq'kalk lfgr izLrko ekuuh; U;k;ky; dh vksj izLrkfor gSA izdj.k mijksDr fcanqvksa ij mfpr vkns'k@ekxZn'kZu gsrq ekuuh; ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh'k egksn; [k.Mok dh vksj yksd U;kl vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 26&27 ds rgr~ dk;Zokgh gsrq vuq'kalk lfgr lknj izsf"krA** 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Registrar, Public Trust while entertaining the application for review has exceeded its jurisdiction as on the first occasion he issued certain directions in the matter to the petitioner-trust on an application filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, which actually was required to be done by the Court, as provided under Section 27 of the Act of 1951, and thereafter when review application was filed by the petitioner asking Registrar to recall the said directions, instead of doing so, he allowed the application under Section 26 of the Act of 1951 and referred the matter to the civil court proposing points to be decided exercising power under Section 27 of the Act of 1951. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the application under Section 26 of the Act of 1951 filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for referring the matter to civil court was rejected by the Registrar and the said order was not assailed by the respondent Nos. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the application under Section 26 of the Act of 1951 filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for referring the matter to civil court was rejected by the Registrar and the said order was not assailed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 then the review petition preferred by the petitioner cannot be decided by the Registrar as if he was deciding the application under Section 26 of the Act of 1951 filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. He submits that the order passed in the review petition is, therefore, not sustainable for the reason that the Registrar entertained the review petition as if he was deciding the application under Section 26 of the Act of 1951 afresh and as such the order is purely illegal because the review petition was filed by the petitioner for the limited purpose. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the Registrar did nothing wrong. He simply issued the directions on the applications filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 directing management of the petitioner-trust to maintain the activities of the trust in accordance with law and such direction can be issued by the Registrar invoking power under Section 26 of the Act of 1951. He submits that since the Registrar was satisfied with the allegations made by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their application under Section 26 of the Act of 1951 against the petitioner-trust, therefore, he issued the said directions, which cannot be said to be improper. He submits that since the Registrar has considered the objections of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and issued appropriate directions, therefore, there was no occasion for them to challenge the order passed by the Registrar, so they did not challenge the same. He further submits that even under the Review jurisdiction the Registrar did nothing. He only referred the matter to the civil court, which was well within his jurisdiction. 2 and 3 and issued appropriate directions, therefore, there was no occasion for them to challenge the order passed by the Registrar, so they did not challenge the same. He further submits that even under the Review jurisdiction the Registrar did nothing. He only referred the matter to the civil court, which was well within his jurisdiction. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon a judgment reported in 2011 (2) MPLJ 560 - Shri Ram Mandir Trust vs. State of M.P. and others and submits that in paragraph-25 of the judgment the High Court has observed as under:- ".............Hence, according to me on recording its satisfaction, the Registrar by exercising its power under Section 26 of the Act of 1951 can refer the matter to the Civil Court. Hence, the remedy which is available to the petitioner against the said order of the Registrar is to submit objection under Section 27 of the Act of 1951" (Emphasis supplied) 8. After hearing rival contention of the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, in my opinion when the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed the application under Section 26 and 27 of the Act of 1951, the Registrar could at the most direct the trustees to apply to the court for issuing direction alleging irregularities committed by the petitioner-trust and if the same was not done by the trustees, the Registrar himself could make such application to the Court. Here it is apposite to reproduce Section 26 of the Act of 1951, which is as under:- "26. Application to Court for directions.- (1) If the Registrar on the application of any person interested in the public trust or otherwise is satisfied that- (a) the original object of the public trust has failed; (b) the trust property is not being properly managed or administered; or (c) the direction of the Court is necessary for the administration of the public trust; he may, after giving the working trustee an opportunity to be heard direct such trustee to apply to Court for directions within the time specified by the Registrar. (2) If the trustee so directed fails to make an application as required, or if there is no trustee of the public trust or if for any other reason, the Registrar considers it expedient to do so, he shall himself make an application to the Court." 9. (2) If the trustee so directed fails to make an application as required, or if there is no trustee of the public trust or if for any other reason, the Registrar considers it expedient to do so, he shall himself make an application to the Court." 9. From perusal of above provision, it is as clear as day light that if the Registrar entertaining the application moved by any person interested in public trust or otherwise is satisfied, after giving opportunity of hearing to the trustees of the said trust, he may direct them to apply to the court for issuing direction, which is required for the administration of the public trust and if trustees fail to do so then the Registrar may himself make an application to the Court. The word 'Court' is defined under sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the Act of 1951, which is as under: "(1) "court" means the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district." It would also be appropriate here to reproduced Section 27 of the Act of 1951, which is as under:- "27. Courts power to hear application.-(1) On receipt of such application the Court shall make or cause to be made such inquiry into the case as it deems fit and pass such orders thereon as it may consider appropriate. (2) While exercising the power, under sub-section (1) the Court shall, among other powers, have power to make an order for:- (a) removing any trustee; (b) appointing a new trustee; (c) declaring what portion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust; (d) providing a scheme of management of the trust property; (e) directing how the funds of a public trust whose original object has failed, shall be spent, having due regard to the original intention of the author of the trust or the object for which the trust was created; (f) issuing any directions as the nature of the case may require. (3) Any order passed by the Court under sub-section (2) shall be deemed to be a decree of such Court and an appeal shall lie therefrom to the High Court. (3) Any order passed by the Court under sub-section (2) shall be deemed to be a decree of such Court and an appeal shall lie therefrom to the High Court. (4) No suit relating to a public trust under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), shall be entertained by any Court on any matter in respect of which an application can be made under Section 26." From perusal of the above, it is clear that Section 27 of the Act of 1951 gives power to the Court to decide such application filed in pursuance to the power exercised by the Registrar under Section 26 of the Act of 1951. 10. However, in this case, while entertaining the application under Section 26 of the Act of 1951 filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the Registrar was not inclined to invoke the power provided under Section 26 of the Act of 1951 and refer the matter to the Court to exercise the power provided under Section 27 of the Act of 1951. However, while passing the order dated 08.05.2020, the Registrar issued certain directions to the trustees of the petitioner-trust, which in fact were required to be issued by the Court exercising power under Section 27 of the Act of 1951. Ergo, in the review petition submitted by the petitioner, the Registrar, at the best, could recall the directions issued in the order dated 08.05.2020, but, instead of doing so, he recalled the entire order and exercised the jurisdiction and power provided under Section 26 of the Act of 1951 whereas earlier he refused to exercise such power and the said direction/order was not assailed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 11. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, in my opinion, the order passed by the Registrar exercising power of review and deciding the matter vide order dated 08.01.2021, which is impugned in this petition, is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as it clearly indicates that the Registrar exceeded its jurisdiction. Therefore, the order dated 08.01.2021 is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 08.05.2020 is also modified and the directions issued by the Registrar directing trustees of the petitioner-trust, which was sought to be deleted by filing review petition by the petitioner, are hereby deleted. However, the respondent Nos. Therefore, the order dated 08.01.2021 is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 08.05.2020 is also modified and the directions issued by the Registrar directing trustees of the petitioner-trust, which was sought to be deleted by filing review petition by the petitioner, are hereby deleted. However, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are at liberty to challenge the order passed by the Registrar rejecting their application filed under Section 26 of the Act of 1951 for exercising power for remitting the matter to the Court for determining the issues raised by them in their application in respect of the irregularities committed by the management of the petitioner-trust. 12. With the aforesaid, this petition is allowed and disposed of.