In a significant judgment, the Rajasthan High Court addressed the procedural nuances concerning the registration of public trusts under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1950. The court emphasized that when the registration of a public trust is contested in an appeal, the trust itself becomes a necessary and proper party to the proceedings.
Background of the Case
The petitioner had applied for the registration of a public trust, which was approved by the Assistant Commissioner. Subsequently, certain respondents challenged this approval by filing an appeal. Notably, the public trust in question was not included as a party in this appeal. In response, the petitioner sought to have the public trust impleaded in the appellate proceedings under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). However, the Commissioner of the Devasthan Department, Udaipur, dismissed this application. This rejection led the petitioner to file a writ petition before the High Court.
Contentions Presented
The petitioner contended that once the Assistant Commissioner approved the registration application, the public trust attained the status of a distinct juristic entity, making it indispensable to the dispute. They argued that the procedures outlined in Section 21 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act were merely administrative, whereas the substantive legal recognition was conferred under Section 19.
Conversely, the respondents argued that the Assistant Commissioner's approval under Section 19 did not equate to formal registration, as the requisite entries under Section 21 had not been made. They further cited Section 29 of the Act, which prohibits unregistered public trusts from initiating legal actions to enforce their rights, suggesting that the trust could not be considered a legitimate party in the appeal.
Court's Analysis and Judgment
Justice Nupur Bhati presided over the matter and provided a detailed analysis of the relevant statutory provisions. The court observed that the respondents themselves had initiated the appeal to overturn the Assistant Commissioner's order approving the trust's registration. Given this context, the court reasoned that the public trust was inherently a necessary and proper party for the adjudication of the appeal.
The court dismissed the respondents' argument that the absence of entries under Section 21 rendered the registration incomplete. It clarified that the Assistant Commissioner's approval under Section 19 was a decisive step in the registration process, and the subsequent procedural formalities under Section 21 did not diminish the trust's status as a registered entity.
Furthermore, the court addressed the applicability of Section 29, which restricts unregistered trusts from filing suits. It clarified that this provision pertains to the initiation of legal actions by unregistered trusts and does not preclude a trust from being impleaded as a party in proceedings where its registration is under challenge.
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling underscores the judiciary's recognition of the rights of public trusts during the registration process. By affirming that a trust becomes a necessary party when its registration is contested, the court ensures that such entities have the opportunity to represent their interests adequately in legal proceedings.
The judgment also delineates the distinction between substantive approval under Section 19 and procedural formalities under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. This clarification is pivotal for legal practitioners and entities involved in the registration of public trusts, as it outlines the stages at which a trust attains legal recognition and the implications thereof.
Conclusion
The Rajasthan High Court's decision provides clarity on the procedural aspects of public trust registration and the rights of such trusts when their registration is contested. By ruling that a public trust is a necessary and proper party in appeals challenging its registration, the court has reinforced the principles of natural justice, ensuring that all relevant parties are given a fair opportunity to present their case.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.