M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 – s.14 – Sale etc. of property belonging to a public trust –Power conferred on the Registrar of public trusts u/s.14 to grant or withhold sanction – Ambit and scope – Held: From a reading of s.14(1) and (2), it is clear 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 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 – 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 – A plain look at rr.9(1) and (2) of the M.P. Trust Rules would show that the conditions mentioned in those rules, are in conformity with the framework of s.14 – However, if r.9(3) were to be read independently, it can be construed as conferring additional power to impose conditions – Such a reading would lead to r.9(3) being rendered ultra vires – However, a proper and harmonious reading of r.9(3) would be that the Registrar, in a given case may impose conditions, if the instrument of public trust, or any law, relating to public trusts, results in a court direction to such effect – In the absence of these objective factors, the Registrarcannot unilaterally impose conditions which in her, or his opinion would inure to the interest of the public trust – M.P. Trust Rules, 1962 – r.9 – Trusts and Charities – Public Trust.
Trusts and Charities – Public trust – Regulation – Public control– Objective – Held: The aim of public control is to ensure that the trust is administered efficiently and smoothly – The state interest is that far, and no more; it cannot mean that the state can dictate what decisions can or cannot be taken – In the specific context of alienation of properties, depending on the nature of the oversight, the state’s interest is to ensure that valuable assets of public trusts are not frittered away – Any organization which is self-governed, cannot be subjected to overarching state control – As long as its decisions are well informed, and grounded on relevant considerations, the interests of the trust are those defined by its members – Any measure of public control enacted through express stipulations in law, should not be expanded to such an extent that the right to freedom of association, under Art.19(1)(c), is reduced to an empty husk, bereft of meaningful exercise of choice– Constitution of India – Art.19(1)(c).
M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 – s.14 – Powers conferred on the Registrar, u/s.14 – Nature of – Difference from powers conferred u/s.36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act – Held: There is a marked difference in the nature of the powers under the two enactments – The Bombay law confers a wider supervisory role; however, such a wide power is not available to the Registrar, under the M.P Public Trusts Act – s.36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, confers decidedly wider powers on the Commissioner (including imposition of “such conditions as he may think fit to impose, regard being had to the interest or benefit or protection of the trust”) than the kind of powers conferred on the Registrar, u/s.14 of the M.P. Public Trusts Act – Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.
Cyrus Rustom Patel v. Charity Commissioner (2018) 14 SCC 761 : [2017] 9 SCR 277 (8); Chenchu Rami Reddy & Anr. v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (1986) 3 SCC 391 : [1986] 1 SCR 989; Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav & Ors. v. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh (2013) 11 SCC
531 : [2012] 11 SCR 767; and Mehrwan Homi Irani & Anr. v. Charity Commissioner Bombay and Ors. (2001)
5 SCC 305 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.