http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: HASAN NURANI MALAK

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER, NAGPUR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/08/1966

BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. RAO, K. SUBBA (CJ)

CITATION:  1967 AIR 1742            1967 SCR  (1) 110

ACT: Madhya  Pradesh Public Trusts Act (30 of 1951), ss. 5, 6,  7 and  8 Scope of-Registrar after enquiry recording finding  a trust  not a public trust-Whether required to make entry  of negative  finding  in register of  public  trusts-Effect  on right to file suit under s. 8 to set aside finding-Repeal of Act  30 of 1951 in application to Vidharbha area by  amended Bombay Public Trusts, Act, 1950, s. 86-Saving clauses in  s. 86(3)-Effect of-Whether fresh enquiry to determine if  trust a public  trust competent.

HEADNOTE: In  October 1953 upon an application made under s. 5 of  the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 30 of 1951, the  Registrar held  an enquiry ,on the question whether  particular  trust founded in 1891 in, Nagpur in the Vidharbha area of the ate, of  which  the  properties were in  the  possession  of  and managed  by  the  appellant, was a  public  trust.   On  the conclusion  of the inquiry, in accordance with s. 6  of  the Act.  he recorded a finding in November 1955 that the  trust in question was not a public trust.  However, the  Registrar did  not, as required by s. 7 of the Act, cause an entry  of this  finding to be made in the register maintained  by  him under the Act. On  November 1, 1956, as a result of the  reorganisation  of States,  the  Vidharbha area was merged in the  then  Bombay State.  The Bombay Legislature thereafter passed the  Bombay Public  Trusts  Unification and Amendment Act,  1959  (6  of 1960)  and by a notification dated February 1, 1964,  passed thereunder, the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, was, extended to the Vidharbha area.  By s. 86 sub-ss. (1) and (2) of  the Bombay Act of 1950 inducted into that Act by Bombay Act 6 of 1960,  the M.P. Act was repealed and the  saving  provisions contained  in  cls. (a), (b)and (c) in s.  86(3)  projected, inter  alla anything ,done, any rights etc. accrued and  any legal  proceedings pending under the repealed Act .On  march 2, 1962, Respondents 2 to 5 filed an application under s. 19 of the Bombay Act before the Assistant Charity  Commissioner for  an  enquiry as to whether the said trust was  a  public trust.   The  appellant contended that since the  trust  was already  declared not to be, a public trust under  the  M.P. Act,  the Assistant Charity Commissioner was precluded  from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

holding  the  enquiry under the Bombay Act.   The  Assistant Charity  Commissioner  however rejected this  contention  on September  6, 1962 and thereupon the appellant filed a  writ petition in the High Court challenging this decision. Two  contentions were raised by the appellant in support  of his  petition.  Firstly, that the Registrar under  the  M.P. Act  having found That 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 meaning of cl. (b) of s. 86(3) of the Bombay Act ,vested  in the   appellant   and  therefore   the   Assistant   Charity Commissioner  :was not competent to reopen that finding  and start  an inquiry abrogating his said right;  and  secondly, that it was obligatory on the Registrar to make an entry  in the register of public trusts maintained by him 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 respondents 2 to 5 bid  was to. proceed in that proceeding by calling upon the Registrar to  make  and notify such entry 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 rules 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 no obligation on the Registrar to make such  a  negative  entry,  it could not  be  said  that  the proceedings  before  him amounted to it  pending  proceeding saved  under  s.  86(3).  It was also  held  that  the  suit contemplated  under s. 8 of the M.P. Act was a suit for  the purpose of correcting an entry made by the Registrar and  as no  such entry was made, respondents 2 to 5 could  not  have filed a suit under that section. On appeal to this Court, HELD  :  A  fresh  inquiry under  the  Bombay  Act  was  not competent  and  the  Assistant  Charitty  Commissioner   was precluded from entertaining it. [119 B] Reading ss. 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the M.P. Act it was clear  that the  Registrar  is enjoined upon to- make an  entry  in  the register  of  public  trusts  irrespective  of  whether  his finding  is in the affirmative or in the negative.  For  the entry  he has to, make is the entry "in accordance with  his finding" whatever that finding is. [117 E] The  inquiry  held by the Registrar under the M.P.  Act  was indisputably  "a  thing  duly done" under  that:  Act.   The inquiry  and its result having been saved by s.  86(3),  cl. (a), they continued to be governed by the M.P. Act in  spite of its ceasing to apply in Vidharbha.  It could not be  said that the inquiry was completed because the Registrar bad yet to make the entry of his finding which he was bound to  make under  s.  7  of the M.P. Act; it was  therefore  a  pending proceeding under that Act. [118 G; 119 A-B] Universal  Import  Agency  V.  Chief  Controller,  [1961]  1 S.C.R.305 referred to. Ramalal   v.  Charity  Commissioner,  63  Bom.   L.R,   418,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

distinguished. The cause of action for a suit under s. 8 of the M.P. Act is finding and not the entry which is merely consequential.  It is  therefore not right to say that a suit cannot. be  filed unless  the Registrar has made the entry.   The  legislature could not have left the right to file a suit to the mercy of the Registrar who may or may not make the entry. [114 B; 117 A-B]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 498 of 1964. 112 Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated  9 12,,1963,  of  the  Bombay High.  Court  (Nagpur  Bench)  at Nagpur in Special Civil Application No. 380 of 1962. S.  T. Desai, G. L. Sanghi, S. C. Ghate, A. S. Babde and  O. C. Mathur, for the appellant. B. R, L. Iyengar and B. R. G. K Achar, for respondent No. 1. N. C. Chatterjee, Shankar Anand, Asghar Ali and Ganpat Rai, for respondents Nos. 2 to 5. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat,  J. This is an appeal by special leave  against  the Judgment  and  order  of  the  High  Court  of   Maharashtra dismissing the appellant’s petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.  The question arising in the appeal is whether the  Assistant  Charity  Commissioner  appointed  under  the Bombay  Public Trusts Act, 1950 as extended to the  area  of Vidharbha has jurisdiction to hold an inquiry under  section 19  of  that  Act  in spite of a  previous  finding  by  the Registrar under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 30  of 1951  that  the  trust in question was not  a  public  trust within the -meaning of the latter Act.  The facts leading to the writ petition may briefly be set out. In October 1953, one Jaferbhai claiming to be a  beneficiary applied under s. 5 of the M.P. Act to the Registrar that the trust  known as Mehdibaug founded in Nagpur in 1891 and  its properties  which were and are admittedly in  possession  of and  managed  by  the  appellant was  a  public  trust.   As required by section 5(2) of that Act -the Registrar directed that  a  proclamation  in respect of  the  said  application should  be  published in the next issue of  Madhya  Pradesh’ Gazette.   The  inquiry held by the Registrar  ended  in  an order dated November 11, 1955 whereby be held that the trust was  not  public  trust.   Though  the  Registrar  gave  his aforesaid  finding he did not cause an entry thereof  to  be made  in the register maintained by him under the  Act.   On November 1, 1956 as a result of the reorganisation of States Vidharbha  was merged in the then Bombay State.  The  Bombay legislature  thereafter  passed  the  Bombay  Public  Trusts (Unification  Amendment)  Act, 1959 and  by  a  notification dated  February 1, 1961 passed thereunder the Bombay  Public Trusts  Act  1950 was extended to the  Vidharbha  area.   On March 2, 1962, respondents 2 to 5 filed an application under section  19  of the Bombay Act, 1950  before  the  Assistant Charity  Commissioner for an inquiry as to whether the  said trust  was  a public trust.  The  appellant  contended  that since  the  trust was already declared not to  be  a  public trust under the M.P. Act the Assistant Charity  Commissioner was precluded from holding the inquiry under the Bombay Act. 113 On  September  6, 1962, the Assistant  Charity  Commissioner rejected that contention.  Thereupon the appellant filed the aforesaid  petition  in the High Court.  The High  Court  as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

stated  above  dismissed  the  petition  holding  that   the Assistant Charity Commissioner had jurisdiction to hold  the inquiry.  It is this order which is impugned in this appeal. In  view  of the controversy between the parties as  to  the effect of certain provisions of the Bombay Act 1950 and  the M.P. Act of 1951 it becomes necessary to briefly notice some of the relevant provisions of the two Acts.  Section 2(4) of the M.P. Act defines public trust" as meaning an express  or constructive  trust  for a public, religious  or  charitable purpose and includes a temple etc. or any other religious or charitable endowment and a society formed for a religious or charitable purpsose.  Sub-section 5 of that section  defines "register"  as  meaning  a register  maintained  under  sub- section  2 of section 3 of the Act.  Section  3(2)  provides that  the  Registrar should maintain a  register  of  public trusts  and such other books and registers and in such  form as   may  be  prescribed.   Section  4  provides   for   the registration of public trusts and lays down that the working trustee of every public trust should apply to the  Registrar for  its  registration by an application  in  which  certain particulars therein mentioned have to be set out.  Section 5 provides  that on receipt of such an application or upon  an application  made by any person having interest in a  public trust  or  on his own motion, the Registrar  shall  make  an inquiry  in the prescribed manner for  ascertaining  amongst other  things  whether  the trust in question  is  a  public trust.  Sub-section 2 of section 5 as aforesaid provides for giving  a public notice of the inquiry proposed to  be  made inviting  all persons interested in the public  trust  under inquiry  to  prefer objections, if any, in respect  of  such trust.   Under section 6 the Registrar on completion of  the inquiry has to record his findings with reasons therefor  as to  the  matters set out in section 5(i) and  under  section 7(1)  he has to cause entries to be made in the register  in accordance  with  his  findings and has to  publish  on  the notice board of his office the entries so made.  Sub-section 2 of section 7 reads as under:               "The  entries  so made shall, subject  to  the               provisions  of  this Act and  subject  to  any               change  recorded under any provision  of  this               Act  or a rule made thereunder, be  final  and               conclusive." Section 8 provides that any working trustee or person having interest in a public trust or any property found to be trust property,  aggrieved by any finding of the  Registrar  under section  6  may,  within six months from  the  date  of  the publication  of the notice under sub-section (1) of  section 7,  institute a suit in a civil court to have  such  finding set aside or modified.  Sub-section 3 provides 114 that on the final decision of the suit, the Registrar shall, if  necessary, correct the entries made in the  register  in accordance with such decision. It is clear from the provisions of section 8 that though the entries made by the Registrar are final and conclusive  that finality  is subject to the decision of the court in a  suit challenging  the  findings of the Registrar.  The  cause  of action for such a suit is thus the finding of the  Registrar and  not the entry.  It is manifest that section 7  requires the  making of the entry and its notification in order  that the  findings  given by the Registrar are recorded  and  are given  publicity so that an aggrieved party whether he is  a working trustee or a person interested in the trust may file a suit within the prescribed time.  Under section 35 of  the Act the State Government framed rules prescribing inter alia

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

for the maintenance of certain registers.  Under the Act and the said Rules the Registrar had to maintain four registers, viz. (1) a register ,of public trusts, (2) a register of the properties  of  public trusts, (3) a  register  relating  to immovable  properties  belonging  to the trusts  and  (4)  a register  of decisions of courts relating to public  trusts. These  being the only registers prescribed either under  the Act  or  the  said  rules there was  no  obligation  on  the Registrar to maintain any other register or book. The  Bombay  Act,  1950 defines a public trust  to  mean  an express or constructive trust for either a public, religious or charitable purpose or both and includes a.temple, a math, a  waqf,  a dharmada or any other  religious  or  charitable endowment  and  a society formed either for a  religious  or charitable  purpose  or for both and  registered  under  the Societies  Registration Act, 1860.  Section 18 provides  for registration  of public trusts and is substantially  in  the same  terms  as  section  4 of the  M.P.  Act.   Section  19 similarly  provides  for  an inquiry  for  ascertaining  the matters set out therein which are again in the same terms as in section 5 of the M. P. Act.  Though the definition of the public  trust in the Bombay Act is not exactly in  the  same terms  as  that  in the M.P. Act the contents  of  both  are substantially the same.  In any event it is not the case  of the  respondents that that which is not a public trust or  a property belonging to a public trust under the M. P. Act has been  made  a public trust or a property belonging  to  such trust under the Bombay Act.  The inquiry under both the Acts and  its  scope are therefore the same.  Section 86  of  the Bombay  Act  inducted  in the Act by Bombay Act  6  of  1960 contains both repeal and saving clauses.  Under sub-sections 1 and 2 read with Bombay Act 6 of 1960 the M.P. Act of  1951 stands repealed.  Sub-section 3 which is a saving  provision provides that the repeal or cessation of the Acts under sub- sections 1 and 2 shall not in any way affect: 115               "(a) anything duly done or suffered  under the               laws  hereby  repealed  or  ceasing  to  apply               before the said date ;               (b)   any  right, title, interest,  obligation               or  liability  already  acquired,  accrued  or               incurred  before the said date under the  laws               hereby repealed or ceasing to apply ;               (c) any legal proceedings or remedy in respect               of such right, title, interest, obligation  or               liability." Two  contentions  were raised by the appellant in  the  High Court in support of his petition.  First, that the Registrar under  the  M.P. Act having found that the trust was  not  a public trust and six months having expired from the date  of his  finding that finding became final, that a right  within the  meaning of cl. (b) of section 86(3) of the  Bombay  Act vested  in  the appellant and that therefore  the  Assistant Charity  Commissioner  was  not  competent  to  reopen  that finding  and start an inquiry abrogating his said right  and (2) that it was obligatory on the Registrar to make an entry in the register of public trusts maintained by him and  that since he had not made such an entry the inquiry held by  him was  not  completed; that that being so the  inquiry  was  a pending proceeding saved by section 86(3) and therefore  the only  remedy which respondents 2 to 5 had was to proceed  in that  proceeding by calling upon the Registrar to  make  and notify  such  entry and if necessary to file  a  suit  under section  8  of the M.P. Act challenging that  finding.   The High Court rejected both these contentions.  The High  Court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

held  that the M.P. Act did not confer any finality  to  the Registrar’s  finding  and  that  under  that  Act   finality attached  to an entry made by the Registrar in the  register of  public  trust.  It also held that when  the  Registrar’s finding  was a negative one it was not incumbent on  him  to make any entry as the only register he was enjoined upon  to maintain was the one prescribed by the Act.  The rules  made under  the Act not having prescribed any other  register  or book  and the only register prescribed by the Act being  the register of public trusts it was not obligatory upon him  to enter a finding that the trust in question was not a  public trust.   No  such  entry having been  made  no  right  under section  86(3)  of the Bombay Act vested  in  the  appellant which  would bar a fresh inquiry under the Bombay Act.   The High  Court further held that there being no ,obligation  on the Registrar to make such a negative entry it could not  be said   that  the  proceedings  before  him  was  a   pending proceeding   -saved  under  section  86(3).    No   finality therefore was given to the finding of the Registrar that the trust  was  not a public trust.  As regards the  suit  under section  8  of the M.P. Act, the High Court held that  on  a true  interpretation of sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of  that  Act the  suit  contemplated  was  a  suit  for  the  purpose  of correcting  an entry made by the Registrar and that no  such entry having been made 116 no  such suit lay and consequently respondents 2 to 5  could not have filed a suit under that section. As aforesaid the preamble of the M.P. Act shows that the Act was enacted to regulate and to make better provision for the administration of public, religious and charitable trusts in the  then  State of Madhya Pradesh.  With that end  in  view section 5 of that Act provides for an inquiry to be held  by the Registrar for ascertaining among other things whether  a trust  under  inquiry is a public trust or  not.   A  public notice  of  such an inquiry was provided for  under  section 5(2) in order to enable persons interested in such trust  to participate  therein.   Sections  6 and 7  enjoin  upon  the Registrar to, record his finding.  Such a finding may either be  that the trust is a public trust or it is not.   Section 7(1)  enjoins  upon him to cause entries to be made  in  the register  "in accordance with the findings recorded  by  him under section 6", and he is to publish the entries when made in  the  register.  The register prescribed no  doubt  is  a register of public trusts.  If the finding of the  Registrar is  that a particular trust is not a public trust,  does  he not have to make an entry of his finding in the register  or has  he  to  make an entry in that register  only  when  his finding is a positive one that the trust is a public  trust? It will be noticed that there is nothing in section 7(1)  to show  that  he  is required to make an  entry  only  if  the finding  is  in  the affirmative.  On the  other  hand  sub- section  1  of section 7 expressly provides  that  he  shall cause  entries  to be made in accordance with  the  findings recorded by him under section 6. Section 6 shows that he has to record his findings and the reasons therefor whatever the findings are, whether in the affirmative or in the negative. Since  entries  under  section  7(1)  are  to  be  made   in accordance with such findings, either positive or  negative, it  follows  that entries have to be  made  irrespective  of whether the trust is found to be a public trust or not.   To say that he is required to make an entry of finding only  if the  finding  is that the trust is a public trust  would  be contrary  to  the express language of sections 6 and  7  and would  unnecessarily curtail the language and the  scope  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

the  two sections.  This construction is also  supported  by section  8. Under that section, though it is the entry  made under s. 7 which has been given finality a right of suit  is conferred on both the working trustee and all persons having interest  in the trust or any property belonging to  it  and who  is  aggrieved ’by any finding’.  The section  no  doubt provides that such a suit has to be filed within six  months from  the  date of the publication of the entry.   But  that provision  is clearly one fixing limitation.  That does  not mean  that the suit is to set aside the entry.  The  section in  so  many terms states that such a suit would be  to  set aside  the finding given by the Registrar and where  such  a finding is set aside the Registrar has to correct the  entry made  in the register in accordance with his findings.   The cause of section for such a suit thus is the finding and not 117 the  entry which is merely consequential.  It  is  therefore not  riot  to  say that a suit cannot be  filed  unless  the Registrar  has  made the entry.  The  legislature,  besides, could not have left the right to file a suit to the mercy of the  Registrar  who may or may not make the  entry.   It  is equally  not  correct to say that the Registrar has  not  to make  an entry if his finding is in the  negative.   Suppose the  Registrar  in a given case gives his finding  that  the trust in question is not a public trust and does not make an entry  on the ground that the register maintained by him  is the  register of public trusts and not ,of trusts which  are not public trusts.  What is a person interested in the trust or its properties to do if he is aggrieved by that  finding? Does  it mean that he has no remedy by way of a suit?   That surely  cannot be the meaning to be given to sections 7  and 8. If the making of the entry is the condition precedent for such  a  suit such a person would have no remedy of  a  suit under section 8. It is precisely to avoid such a result that the  section provides in explicit language that any  person, aggrieved  by the finding and not the entry, has a right  to file  a suit and to have such a finding set  aside,  whether the finding is positive or negative.  There is nothing in s. 8  which  restricts the right of a suit in cases  where  the finding  is  in the affirmative.  If that  was  so,giving  a right  to sue to a person interested in the trust  would  be superfluous as he would never be aggrieved by a finding that the trust is a public trust.  The High Court was, therefore, in error when it held that the Registrar was not obliged  to make  the entry as his finding was in the negative.  In  our view,  reading sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the M.P. Act it  is clear  that the Registrar is enjoined upon to make an  entry in the register of public trusts irrespective of whether his finding  is in the affirmative or in the negative.  For  the entry  he has to make is the entry "in accordance  with  his finding" whatever that finding is. As  regards the second contention urged before it, the  High Court observed that if it was obligatory on the Registrar to cause  an  entry  to be made in the  register  even  if  the finding was negative, the fact that he had not made such  an entry  would not deprive the appellant of his right  and  in that event it would have held that the proceeding before the Registrar was still pending and respondents 2 to 5 would  in that  case have to have recourse to the M.P. Act.   But  the High Court on the ground that there was no obligation on the Registrar  to make the entry rejected this contention.   Let us  see  whether there was justification in  the  contention that the inquiry is still pending and that respondents 2  to 5 have to proceed under that Act and not under s. 19 of  the Bombay Act.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

Mr.  Desai  for  the appellant relied  on  subsection  3  of section  86 and urged that all the three  sub-clauses,  (a), (b)  and (c) apply to the present case.  He urged  that  the inquiry before the Registrar was a thing duly done under the M.P.  Act  and  was therefore saved,  that  the  Registrar’s finding had become final on the expiry of six 118 months from the date of that finding and its finality vested a  right in the appellant which is saved by the  sub-section and  lastly that the legal proceeding, that is the  enquiry, was still pending and in spite of the cessation of the  M.P. Act, was saved.  He contended that a fresh inquiry therefore could not be held as the proceeding before the Registrar was still pending and the competent authority to proceed with it was   the   Registrar   and  not   the   Assistant   Charity Commissioner.  The Assistant Charity Commissioner was there- fore  precluded  from  holding the  impugned  inquiry.   Mr. Chatterjee,  on the other hand, argued that no right can  be said  to  have  accrued  to the  appellant  as  no  finality attached  to  the  Registrar’s finding,  an  entry  of  that finding  not having been made by the Registrar.   There  was also no question of any legal proceeding being saved as  the proceeding saved is the one in respect of a right, title  or interest vested in a party.  Therefore, sub-cls. (b) and (c) according  to him would not in any case apply.   As  regards sub-cl. (a) he argued that the inquiry before the  Registrar was  over so soon as he gave his finding and therefore  that inquiry also cannot be said to have been saved. The words "anything duly done" in sub-cl. (a) are very often used by the legislature in saving clauses such as we have in section 86 (3).  Section 6 of the General Clauses Act,  1897 also provides that unless a different intention appears  the repeat  of  an Act would not affect anything  duly  done  or suffered there-under.  The object of such a saving clause is to  save  what has been previously done  under  the  statute repealed.   The result of such a saving clause is  that  the pre-existing law continues to govern the thing done before a particular date from which the repeal of such a pre-existing law  takes  effect.  In Universal Imports  Agency  v.  Chief Controller(l)  construing  the words "things done"  used  in para  6 of the French Establishments (Application  of  Laws) Order, 1954, this Court held that on a proper interpretation the  expression  "things done" was comprehensive  enough  to take in not only the things done but also the effect of  the legal  consequences flowing therefrom.  The inquiry held  by the  Registrar under the M.P. Act was indisputably "a  thing duly  done"  under  that Act.  The inquiry  and  its  result having been saved by section 86 (3) (a) they continue to  be governed by the M.P. Act in spite of its ceasing to apply in Vidarbha.  As we have already held it was obligatory on  the Registrar  to  have  made an entry of  his  finding  in  the register  of public trusts maintained by him under that  Act though  the  finding  was that the trust was  not  a  public trust.   If any one was aggrieved by that finding  he  could have  made  the Registrar to cause an entry to be  made  and thereafter file a suit to set aside the finding and have the entry  corrected.  Respondents 2 to 5 would be such  persons as  they  claim  to  be interested  in  the  trust  and  are therefore persons aggrieved by that finding and (1) [1961] 1. S.C.R. 305. 119 interested  in  challenging it.  The  contention  that  that inquiry  was completed is not correct because the  Registrar had yet to make the entry of his finding which he was  bound to make under section 7 of that Act.That being the position,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

the inquiry is saved by sub-cl.(a) of  section 86(3) and  it is  still pending and is governed by  the  M.P.Act.  In  the result a fresh inquiry under   the  Bombay Act    while  the proceeding  under  the  M.P. Act is still  pending  was  not competent   and  the  Assistant  Charity  Commissioner   was precluded  from  entertaining it.  In this view  it  is  not necessary  to consider Mr. Desai’s contention  that  clauses (b) and (c) also apply to the present case.  Mr.  Chatterjee however  drew our attention to a decision of the High  Court of  Bombay  in Ramalal v.  Charity,  Commissioner(1).   That decision  cannot assist the respondents as the effect  of  a saving  clause  such as we have in section 86(3) or  in  the Bombay General Clauses Act was not considered there and  the question  of the proceeding being a pending one was  neither raised nor considered.  For the reasons aforesaid it is  not possible  to  sustain  the order passed by  the  High  Court dismissing the petition. We therefore set aside the order, allow the appeal and  make the  petition absolute.  The respondents will pay the  costs of the appellant both here and in the High Court. R. K. P. S.                       Appeal allowed. (1) 63 Bom. L.R. 418. 120