PARSI ZOROASTRIAN ANJUMAN, MHOW versus THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER/THE REGISTRAR OF PUBLIC TRUSTS & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 405 · Decided: 28-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
405
PARSI ZOROASTRIAN ANJUMAN, MHOW
v.
THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER/THE REGISTRAR OF
PUBLIC TRUSTS & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 490 of 2022)
JANUARY 28, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
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.
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 405
405
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
406
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
407
Case Law Reference
[2017] 9 SCR 277 
referred to
Para 8
[1986] 1 SCR 989
referred to
Para 17
[2012] 11 SCR 767
referred to
Para 17
(2001) 5 SCC 305
referred to
Para 17
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 490 of
2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2018 of

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