JUDGMENT : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This public interest litigation has been preferred by the petitioner herein calling in question the order dated 13/08/2021 (Annexure P-1) by which the application filed by respondent No. 4 under Section 14 of Chhattisgarh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (hereinafter 'Act of 1951) has been allowed by the Registrar, Public Trust and permission has been granted to respondent No. 4 Trust for sale of 8 shops belonging to the said Trust on the ground that the said permission granted by the Registrar, Public Trust is not in accordance with law and is liable to be set aside. 2. Return has been filed separately by respondents No. 1 to 3/State and by respondent No. 4 supporting the order impugned passed by the Registrar, Public Trust stating inter alia that the Registrar has passed the order impugned allowing for sale of 8 shops in the interest of the Public Trust in order to generate revenue so that the object of the Public Trust can be achieved, that too, after conducting an enquiry and after inviting objections from the general public. Therefore, the objection raised by the petitioner at this later stage by way of a public interest litigation is simply an afterthought and thus, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it does not involve any public interest. 3. Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the impugned order is bad in law as the Registrar, Public Trust has permitted for sale of property belonging to the Public Trust, which is not in public interest, therefore, the order impugned (Annexure P-1) is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3/State and Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, would support the impugned order and submit that after conducting a detailed enquiry and after following the due process of law, the Registrar, Public Trust has passed the impugned order allowing for sale of 8 shops belonging to the respondent No. 4 Trust, therefore, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. Section 14 of the Chhattisgarh Public Trusts Act, 1951, provides as under :- “14. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. Section 14 of the Chhattisgarh Public Trusts Act, 1951, provides as under :- “14. Previous Sanction of Registrar, in cases of sale, etc., of property belonging to a public trust. - (1) Subject to the directions in the instrument of trust or any direction given under this or any other law by any Court, - (a) no sale, mortgage, exchange of gift of any immovable property; and (b) no lease for a period exceeding seven years in the case of agricultural land or for a period exceeding three years in the case of nonagricultural land or building; belonging to a public trust, shall be valid without the previous sanction of the Registrar. (2) The Registrar shall not refuse his sanction in respect of any transaction specified in sub-section (1) unless such transaction will, in his opinion, be prejudicial to the interests of the public trust.” 7. By virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act of 1951, the Registrar cannot refuse permission for sale of any immovable property belonging to public trust unless in his opinion, such a transaction would be prejudicial in the interests of the trust. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 35 of the Act of 1951, the State Government framed the rules named as Chhattisgarh Public Trust Rules, 1962 (hereinafter “Rules of 1962”) and Rule 9 provides for applications under Section 14 for sanction of alienations, which states as under :- “9. Applications under Section 14 for sanction of alienations. – (1) Every application for sanction of an alienation shall contain information inter alia on the following points, - (I) Whether the instrument of trust contains any directions as to alienation of immovable property; (ii) What is the necessity for the proposed alienation; (iii) how the proposed alienation is in the interest of the public trust; and (iv) in the case of a proposed lease, the terms of the past leases, if any. Such application shall be accompanied by a valuation report of an expert. Such application shall be accompanied by a valuation report of an expert. (2) The Registrar, before according or refusing sanction, may make such inquiry as he may deem necessary, (3) In according sanction, the Registrar may impose such conditions, as he may deem fit, if he is of the opinion that the grant of sanction to the proposed alienation without imposing such conditions will be prejudicial to the interests of the public trust.” 8. Rule 9 of the Rules of 1962 provides information to be disclosed in an application filed for alienation of trust property and Rule 9(2) provides for making such inquiry “as the Registrar may deem necessary”. Rule 9(3) empowers the Registrar to impose “such conditions” as he may deem fit so that the alienation may not be prejudicial to the interests of public trust. 9. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of Section 14 of the Act of 1951 and the rules made thereunder, it is quite vivid that in the present case it is the case of respondents No. 1 to 3/State that respondent No. 4 Trust made an application in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules of 1962 and the Registrar, Public Trust registered a revenue case on the application made by respondent No. 4 Trust and in light of the provision contained under Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 1962, the Registrar, Public Trust directed the concerned Patwari to submit the report with respect to the immovable property for which application was made by respondent No. 4 vide order dated 08/07/2021 and accordingly, report of the Patwari was submitted on 27/07/2021 (Annexure R-1). In addition to that, objections were invited from the general public by making publication in two local newspapers on 24/06/2021, however, it was observed by the Registrar that publication was not made in prominent local newspaper, therefore, further direction was issued on 07/07/2021 to make publication in prominent newspaper and in compliance of the same, publication was made in the prominent newspaper namely Dainik Bhaskar and Nai Duniya on 09/07/2021 and moreover, notice was also affixed in the notice board at Tahsil Office, Raipur and Office of the Zila Panchayat, Raipur and since no objection was received by anyone including the petitioner herein till the cut-off date, then the Registrar, Public Trust, after considering the Patwari's report, proceeded to record the statement of each trustee of respondent No. 4 Trust who took the decision of alienating those 8 shops and in light of the statements made by the trustees which shows the purpose and object of filing the application under Section 14 of the Act of 1951 read with Rule 9 of the Rules of 1962 and further considering the Patwari's report, the Registrar, Public Trust passed the impugned order dated 13/08/2021 (Annexure P-1) granting sanction to the trust for selling 8 shops, which is very much in compliance of the Act of 1951 as well as the Rules of 1962 finding that alienation/transaction would not be prejudicial to the interests of public trust rather it would be in the interest of public trust. 10. The Supreme Court in the matter of Parsi Zoroastrian Anjuman, Mhow v. Sub Divisional Officer/The Registrar of Public Trusts and another, 2022 SCC Online SC 104 considered the scope of Section 14 of the Act of 1952 and in categorical terms held that the decision to sell the properties is a two layer process where all the members participated and decided to dispose the property and the decision was based on realistic assessment of the trust, existing and future liabilities, obligations towards charity etc. imposed by the trust instrument and their Lordships pertinently observed as under :- “22. imposed by the trust instrument and their Lordships pertinently observed as under :- “22. As can be seen by Section 14(1), previous sanction of the Registrar of public trusts is a precondition, for the (a) “sale, mortgage, exchange of gift of any immovable property” or (b) “lease for a period exceeding seven years in the case of agricultural land or for a period exceeding three years in the case of non-agricultural land or building”. If Section 14(1) had stopped there, the embargo on alienation of the types enumerated in the provision (sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, etc., or long-term lease(s) of agricultural or nonagricultural properties) i.e., obtaining previous sanction, could well have meant that the Registrar's role was conceivably intrusive. However, the provisions of Section 14(1) and the power conferred on the Registrar under it, are controlled by Section 14(2) which states that the Registrar “shall not refuse his sanction” unless in his opinion the alienation, or transfer is prejudicial to the interests of the public trust. The clear reference in Section 14(2) is to the power exercisable under Section 14(1). The controlling expression in Section 14(1) significantly, is that previous sanction in respect of the two situations (i.e., alluded in clauses (a) and (b)) is “subject to the directions in the instrument of trust or any direction given under this or any other law by any Court.” This controlling or, rather opening words, clearly indicate that the grant or refusal of sanction by the Registrar have to be based on either “the directions in the instrument of trust”, or “any direction given under this (i.e., M.P. Public Trusts Act) or any other law by any court”. The discretion thus, is relatable to directions in the trust document, or any provision of the Act, or any other law as ordered (or directed) by any court. Therefore, the Registrar, is not empowered to read into it her own notions of what is beneficial and what is prejudicial to the trust. The refusal has to be specific to the requirement of law, wherever such law clearly stipulates so, or any specific provision of the trust document.” 11. Therefore, the Registrar, is not empowered to read into it her own notions of what is beneficial and what is prejudicial to the trust. The refusal has to be specific to the requirement of law, wherever such law clearly stipulates so, or any specific provision of the trust document.” 11. Similarly, in the matter of Khasgi Trust Indore v. Vipin Dhanaitkar, 2022 SCC Online SC 900, their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered the aspect of Section 14 of the Act of 1951 as well as the power of the Registrar, Public Trust under the Public Trust Act and held as under :- “51. Section 14 is applicable to immovable property of a Public Trust. Section 13 governs the investment of public trust money. The State's control of charities and religious endowments in some form is not foreign to our jurisprudence. A Public Trust invariably depends on charity done by individuals by donating immovable property or by making cash donations. Though in law, the assets and properties of a Public Trust vest in its Trustees, they hold the Trust Property in a fiduciary capacity for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the Trust. They hold the property for giving effect to the objects of the Public Trust. A Trust property cannot be alienated unless it is for the benefit of the Trust and/or its beneficiaries. The trustees are not expected to deal with the trust property, as if it is their private property. It is the legal obligation of the trustees to administer the trust and to give effect to the objects of the trust. Therefore, the statutes dealing with the Public Trusts which are operating in various States, provide for limited control of the activities of a Public Trust. The control is exercised by providing of the submission of the annual accounts by the trustees and filing of returns with the concerned charity organization of other authority under the law. There are statutory constraints on the power of the Trustees to alienate the property of a Public Charitable Trust. There are provisions in such statutes for penalizing the Trustees for misappropriation of the property of the Trust. Many such Statutes empower the authorities under the Statues to remove a Trustee of a Public Trust, on account of misbehavior or acts of misappropriation, etc. The Trustees are the custodians of Trust properties. There are provisions in such statutes for penalizing the Trustees for misappropriation of the property of the Trust. Many such Statutes empower the authorities under the Statues to remove a Trustee of a Public Trust, on account of misbehavior or acts of misappropriation, etc. The Trustees are the custodians of Trust properties. The Trustees have a duty to safeguard the interests of the beneficiaries of the Public Trust. That is how, a provision in Public Trust Law, like Section 14 of the Public Trusts Act, is of importance. This provision seeks to protect the Trust property in the hands of the Trustees from unwarranted alienations. In the present case, the transactions of sale in favour of the appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition 19063 of 2021, have been effected admittedly without obtaining prior permission under Section 14. The Division Bench of the High Court has gone into the question whether the alienations were null and void. However, the purchasers were not parties to the proceedings before the High Court. Hence, final adjudication could not have been made on the issue of nullity of the alienations made by the Trustees of the Khasgi Trust in absence of the necessary parties. However, there is no manner of doubt that the alienations could not have been made without prior sanction of the Registrar.” 12. Reverting to the facts of the case in light of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that respondent No. 4 Trust had taken the decision to sell 8 shops in the interest of the Public Trust in order to generate revenue to achieve the objects of the Trust and to meet out the future expenses and had filed an application under Section 14 of the Act of 1951 which has been allowed by the Registrar, Public Trust after conducting a detailed enquiry and after inviting objections from general public, vide the order impugned. Despite inviting objections by the Registrar, Public Trust time and again while making enquiry under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1962, petitioner did not choose to file any objection in time, though he is said to have been seriously interested in the welfare of the temple/trust, which goes to show that his objection in the shape of this public interest litigation is only an outcome of afterthought, which has been put forth at the instance of someone else. 13. In view of the aforesaid finding, we hereby hold that the sanction granted by the Registrar, Public Trust vide impugned order dated 13/08/2021 (Annexure P-1) under Section 14 of the Act of 1951 after making an inquiry under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1962 is strictly in accordance with law. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. However, we hope and trust that the sale proceeds from the shops in question would go towards fulfilling the object of the Trust for which permission was granted by the Registrar, Public Trust without fail.