HASAN NURANI MALAK versus ASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER, NAGPUR & ORS.

Citation: [1967] 1 S.C.R. 110 · Decided: 22-08-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

HASAN NURA!"I MALAK 
v. 
ASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER, NAGPUR & ORS. 
· August 22, 1966 
(K. SUBBA RAO, C. J. 
A1'D J. M. SHELAT, J.] 
Madhya Pradesh Public Tru.is Act (30 of 1951), ss. 5, 6, 7 and 8 
-Scope of -Registrar after enquiry recording finding a trust 1101 u publ": 
tnLS't-W hether required to make entry of ntgative (u1ding ;,, reRhtcr of 
p11blic trusrs---Effect on right to file :ruir under •· 8 to set a<ide finding-
Repea/ of Act 30 of 1951 in application ro Vidhurbha area by am...,dtd 
Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, s. 86--Sal'ing clauses in s. 86(3)-
EOect o/-Ji'hetl1er freslr enquiry to de1ern1i11e if 
trurt a public 
tru.tt 
comp~tent. 
Jn October 1953 upon an applicati<>n made under>. 5 of the Madhya 
Pradesh Public Trus.i. Act, 30 of 1951, the Registrar 
!>old an enquiry 
on the question Wliether particular trust founded in 1891 in Nagpur in 
the Vidharbha area of .the State, of which the properties were in 
the 
possession of and managed by the appellant, wa., a public trust. 
On thll 
conclusion of the inquiry, in accordance v.·ith s. 6 of the Act, he rec.:>rded 
a finding in November 1955 that the trust in question was not a public 
trust. 
Howe\'er, the Registrar did not, as required by s. 7 of the Act, 
came an entry of this finding to be made in the register maintained by him 
under the Act. 
On No>'<'mbcr I, 1956, as a result of the reorganisation of States, the 
Vidbarbha area was merged in the then Bombay State. 
The Bombay 
Lqislature thereafter paMed the Bombay Public Trusts (Unillcation Biid 
Amendment) Act, 1959 (6 of 1960) and bv a notification dated Febru· 
ary I, 1961, pas<ed thereunder, the Bombay 
Public Trust Act. 
1950. 
was extended to the Vidharbha area. 
By •· 86 sub-ss. (I) and (2) of 
the Bombay Act of 1950 inducted into that Act by Bombay Act 6 
of 1960, ·the M.P. Act wa< repealed and the sa\ing provi•ions C"'1tained 
in els. (a), (b) and (c) in s. 86(3) pro!ected. in!tr a/la, 
anything 
done, any rights etc. accn1ell <ind any Jeg:i1 procced.!ngs pending under 
the repealed Act. 
On March 2, 1962. Respondents 2 to 5 filed an 
application under s. 19 of the Bombay Act before the Assistant Charitv 
CommissioneT for an enquiry as to whethe' the said trust waa a public 
trust. 
Tho appellant contended that since the trust wu already declared 
not to be a 11uhlic trust under the M.P. Act, the Assistanl Chanty Com· 
missioner was precluded from holding the enquiry under the Bombay 
Act. 
The Assistant Charity Com.missioner ho\\·ever rejected this conten-
tion on September 6, 1962 and thereupon the appellant filed a writ 
petition in the High Court challenging this decisio.n. 
Two contentions were raised by the appellant in support of hi< peti· 
lion. 
Firstly, that the Registrar under the M.P. Acl having found tbal 
the trust was not a public trust and six months having expired from 
the date» of his finding, that finding became final under s. 8; that a 
right within the moaning of cl. (b) of s. 86(3) of the Bombay 
Act 
vested in the appellant and therefore the Assistant Charity Commi<sioner 
was not competent to reopen that finding and stan an inquiry abro~at­
ing his said right; and secondly, that it was obligatory on the Registrar 
tD make an entry in the register of public trusts mainlained \>Y him 
Ito 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
HASAN NURANI v. CHARITY COMMR. (She/at, J.) 
111 
under the Act and that since he had not made such an entry the enquiry 
held by him was not completed; that being so the enquiry was a pending 
proceeding saved by s. 86(3) and therefore the only remedy which res-
pondents 2 to 5 had was to proceed in that proceeding by calling upon 
the Registrar to make and notify such enuy and if necessary to file a 
suit under s. 8 of the M.P. Act challenging that finding. 
The High Court rejected both these contentions and held 
that 
the 
M.P. Act did not confer any finality on the Registrar's finding and that 
under that Act finality attached to an entry made by the Registrar in the 
register of public trusts; as the only register that the Registrar was enjoined 
upon to maintain under the Act and the rtdes made thereunder was the 
register of public trusts it was not incumbent on him to make an entry in 
such register when his finding was a negative one. 
No such entry having 
been made, no right under s. 86( 3) vested in the appellant which would 
bar a fresh inquiry under the Bombay Act. The High Court further held 
that there being

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.