Special Leave Petition Civil No 10326 of 1989
From the Judgment and Order dated 181989 of the Patna High Court in CWJC No 5768 of 1989
RK Jain R Sharma RP Sharma and Ms Sangeeta Tripathi for the Petitioners
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA J
This is one more case of an educational insti tution started in the State of Bihar without recognition applying for permission to allow the students whom it has admitted and from whom it has presumably recovered substan tial fees to be allowed to appear at the ensuing examina tion on the ground that the question of its recognition has not been decided by the Government
It appears from the judgment of the High Court that a number of similar mushroom institutions have sprung up in the State of Bihar without prior recognition have admitted students received fees from them and allowed them to undergo training for a sub stantial period of time without getting any recognition and thereafter tried to get permission from the Court for their students to be allowed to appear at the examination on grounds of sympathy
This impression has been gathered from a 25 number of similar applications made to this Court in the last few months
It is not possible to grant any such permission as prayed for because the granting of such permission would be clearly violating the provisions of the Education Act See the judgments in SLP No 120 14 of 1987 decided on Novem ber 25 1987 and the AP Christians Medical Educational Society vs Government of AP  Anr   What is however unfortunate is that applications made by various educational institutions to the Government for recognition are not promptly disposed of
In fact we are of the view that the concerned department of the Government of Bihar should see to it that applications for recognition of educational institutions are decided promptly and where such an application is without merit the Government should promptly reject the same and take steps to see to it that the rejection is brought to the attention of the students of the institution concerned so that they may not waste further time and money by undergoing training in that institution
The failure of the Government to take such action would only reflect callous indifference to the inter ests of the young students to whom the Government certainly owes certain responsibilities
We also feel that the State Government should issue advertisement through newspapers and other possible channels if any to ensure that students do not get misled by such unrecognised institutions into wast ing their precious time and money in undergoing training which will be of no avail to them
We find that there ap pears to be a large number of students in the State who are misled by such institutions
In fact the State should consider taking such steps criminal or civil as open to it in law to stop such institutions and those who run them from misleading students and deceiving them
We are informed that in the present case the applica tion for recognition was made by the petitioners and as early as 1986 that application has not still been disposed of
We direct that if this so the application should be disposed of within 4 weeks from today
In these circumstances we direct the State Government of Bihar to get published advertisements in at least three newspapers in that State with wide circulation warning students not to take admission in any educational institu tion which has not got recognition and making it clear that if they do so they would be doing so at their own risk
The advertisements to be issued within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order by the department concerned
We direct that the 26 copies of this order be sent forthwith to the Chief Minister of Bihar the Minister in charge of the Education Department and the Secretary of that department
Special leave petition is dismissed with these observa tions
In case the application of the petitioners for recog nition is granted the Government will consider the granting of appropriate relief to the students in respect of the years for which the recognition is concerned
RSS Petition dismissed


Summary:
Respondent No 1 is a public trust
The trust owns several properties
On the ground that the trust properties were improperly and fraudulently alienated a suit was fried under Section 92 CPC for removing the trustee and appointing a new trustee and to recover trust properties alienated by the said trustee
The sub judge permitted the trustees to continue and framed a scheme decree for the future manage ment and administration of trust
The scheme also granted liberty to the parties to apply to the sub court for further directions as regards the administration of the trust
The trustees filed an interim application before the sub court and obtained permission to sell two properties
The appellants filed an interim application for setting aside the order granting permission to the trust for selling the two properties alleging that the negotiated price was only about 20 of the market price
The sub judge dismissed the application on the ground that the applicants had no locus standi to file the application under clauses 13 and 14 of the Scheme decree as they were not parties to the Origi nal suit
On revision the High Court also came to the conclusion that the application was not maintainable
This appeal by special leave is against the said judgment of the High Court
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that since the suit under section 92 CPC being a representative suit the scheme decree binds not only the parties thereto but all those who are interested in the trust
The contention of the Respondents was that only the two persons 761 who filed the original suit can be considered as parties in terms of clause 14 of the scheme decree and since the appellants were not plaintiffs in the suit they have no locus standi to file an application under clauses 13 and 14 of the scheme decree
Allowing the appeals this Court HELD 11 A suit under Section 92 of the Code is a suit of a special nature for the protection of Public rights in the Public Trusts and charities
The suit is fundamentally on behalf of the entire body of persons who are interested in the trust
It is for the vindication of public rights
The beneficiaries of the trust which may consist of public at large may choose two or more persons amongst themselves for the purpose of filing a suit under Section 92 of the Code and the suit title in that event would show only their names as plaintiffs
The named plaintiffs being the repre sentatives of the public at large which is interested in the trust all such interested persons would be considered in the eyes of law to be parties to the suit
A suit under Section 92 of the Code is thus a representative suit and as such binds not only the parties named in the suit title but all those who are interested in the trust
It is for that reason that explanation VI to Section 11 of Code constructively bar by res judicata the entire body of interested persons from reagitating the matters directly and substantially in issue in an earlier suit under Section 92 of the Code
766B C 12 A suit whether under Section 92 of the Civil Proce dure Code or under Order 1 Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code is by the representatives of large number of persons who have a common interest
The very nature of a representative suit makes all those who have common interest in the suit as parties
In the instant case all persons who are interested in the respondent trust are parties to the original suit and as such can exercise their rights under clauses 13 and 14 of scheme decree
766H 767A Raje Anandrao vs Shamrao and Ors   Ahmed Adam Sait and Ors
vs Inayatullah Mekhri and Ors  relied on
21 The property of religious and charitable endowments or institutions must be jealously protected because large segment of the community has beneficial interest therein
Sale by private negotiations which is not visible to the public eye and may even give rise to public suspicion should not therefore be permitted unless there are special 762 reasons to justify the same
Care must be taken to fix the reserve price after ascertaining the market value for safe guarding the interest of the endowment
767F G 22 The orders of subordinate court dated October 27 1984 and January 23 1985 permitting the sale of the two properties and consequent sale in favour of the respondents are set aside
The properties in question may be sold by public auction by giving wide publicity regarding the date time and place of public auction
The offer of Rs 10 lacs made in this Court will be treated as minimum bid of the person who has given the offer and deposited ten percent of the amount in this Court
It will also be open to the re spondentspurchasers to participate in the auction and compete with others for purchasing the properties
The respondents vendees from the trust shall be entitled to refund of the price paid by them with 10 interest from the date of payment of the amount till the date of auction of the property
They will also be entitled to compensation for any superstructure put up by them in the properties includ ing compensation for any additions or improvements made by them to the building and the property
767H 768A C Chenchu Ram Reddy and Anr
vs Govt
of Andhra Pradesh and Ors
 1986 3 SCC 391 relied on