- (1.) THIS writ petition, filed in March 1965, challenges notifications issued by the State Government on 17-2- 1965 tinder Sections 4 and 5 of the Charitable Endowments Act in respect of a trust called the Tratap Trust' created in the year 1919 for running the Pratap Press at Kanpur and publishing a newspaper call ed the 'Pratap'. By the notification issu ed under Section 4 of the Act the Pro perty held by the trust has been vested Sn the Treasurer of charitable endow ments; while by the notification under Sec tion 5 a Scheme for the administration of the trust has been settled and a number of new trustees have been appointed.
(2.) AT the relevant time three per sons were undoubtedly serving as trustees of the trust viz. Srimati Rama Vidyarthi (Petitioner No. 1), Dr. Jawahar Lal RohtagI JO. P. 4) and Sri Nawal Kishore Bhartiya (O. P. 5). The petitioners assert that there was in addition a fourth trustee Ashok Vidyarthi (petitioner No. 2); but in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State the alleged resolution of the trust dated 2-5- 1961, whereby he was appointed, : has been stated to be forged and fabricat ed. The first argument advanced by Mr. S. C. Khare. learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the action taken by the State Government under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act was illegal because such action can only be taken on an application made in accordance with Section 6 "by the per son acting in the administration of the trust, or where there are more persons than one so acting, than by those persons or a majority of them", whereas the action has been taken on the application of only two trustees (Jawahar Lal Rohtagi and Nawal Kishore Bhartiya). who did not constitute a majority. This argument, however, is based on the assumption that there were four trustees in existence at the time, including Ashok Vidyarthi (petitioner No. 2); but as already pointed out. the appointment of Ashok Vidyarthi has been denied in the counter-affidavit. Here, therefore, we are faced with a disputed question of fact, which cannot be resolv ed in a petition of this nature. In view of the conflicting averments of the parties, I am unable to come to any firm conclu sion as to whether there were actually four legally appointed trustees at the re levant time; and consequently this first argument advanced on behalf of the peti tioner cannot succeed.
(3.) NEXT , it is contended that the impugned notifications are bad because they were issued without any prior notice being given to petitioner No, 1, who was undoubtedly a trustee and interested in the management of the trust. The rules on this subject, however, which have been reproduced in Annexures L-l and L-2 to the petition, show that no previous infor mation to trustees or other interested parties was necessary before the vesting order and the scheme were promulgated. Rule 6 merely lays down that:- "6 (1), When the Government is of opinion that a proposed vesting order or a proposed scheme or .modification of scheme should not be made or settled with out previous publication, it shall publish a draft of the proposed order scheme or modification, or a proper abstract thereof signed by one of its secretaries for the in formation of persons likely to be affect ed thereby." This shows that the question whether there should be any previous notice be fore the final notifications are issued has been left entirely to the subjective satis faction of the Government. There is no mandatory requirement for publication and the notifications impugned in the pre sent case cannot be held to be defective merely because no prior intimation was given to the petitioner No. 1 or other per sons likely to be interested. ;