IMPORTANT POINTS
Change report under Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and objections thereon are required to be enquired by Charity Commissioner by following prescribed procedures.
A court of law or a superior Tribunal would not entertain an appeal or revision application wherein no effective order can be passed.
Even if no limitation is provided for Suo motu proceeding, it should not be initiated after a long time.

Headnote:(a) Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 – Section 22 – Change report – Charity Commissioner entitled to make enquiry – In case of any objection to the change report an enquiry is required to be conducted following procedures prescribed under the Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 and the Bombay Public Trusts Rules, 1951. (Para 14)
       (b) Administration of Justice – Judicial propriety – A court of law or a superior Tribunal would not entertain an appeal or revision application wherein no effective order can be passed – Fact situation as obtaining on date of filing application as also subsequent events should be considered – Tenure of the committee came to an end – No effective order could be passed on the change report. (Para 17, 20, 24)
       (2006) 12 SCC 404; (1970) 3 SCC 119 – Relied upon
       1980 Mah. L.J. 372 – Referred
       (c) Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 – Section 70A – Suo motu proceeding – No limitation prescribed – However, should not be initiated after a long time – Exercise of jurisdiction is further subject to limitation in sub-section (2) – Instantly, appeal barred by limitation – Respondent 1 attending all proceedings and participating in meetings – No prima facie case made out and respondent 1 lacked bona fide – Suo motu power ought not be exercised. (Para 17, 19)
       (d) Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 – Section 70A and 72 – Joint Charity Commissioner, on remand from District Judge, further remanding the case to Assistant Charity Commissioner – No error in view of elections in 2006 – Appeal dismissed by Joint Commissioner – High Court ought not entertained further appeal – High Court not issuing notices to concerned persons – Impugned judgment not sustainable. (Para 22, 23)
       Facts of the case:
       Members of the Managing Committee of the Marathwada Sarvodya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal which is a public Trust were elected in an election held on 30th June, 1996. However, before expiry of its term of five years, respondent No.1 submitted his resignation on 31st December, 1999. A change report to that effect was filed and approved by the competent authority under the Act.
       Fresh elections took place on or about 26th June, 2001. After the elections were held in 2001, a change report had been submitted. It was accepted by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Jalna on 5th August, 2002. It is stated that about 82 meetings were held thereafter and the first respondent participated in almost all of them. He had, thus, accepted the election of the second respondent, Babasaheb Akat, as the President of the Trust.
       Respondent No.1 filed a revision petition before the Joint Charity Commissioner questioning the validity of the elections held in 2001 which was allowed inter alia observing that the notice dated 26th June, 2001 calling for the meeting had not been issued as per the by-laws of the society and, thus, the business conducted in that meeting on the basis of such defective notice cannot be said to be legal and valid and in that view of the matter office-bearers had also not been elected validly.
       The second respondent filed an application before the District Judge, Jalna who allowed the said application in part and remanded the matter back to the Joint Charity Commissioner.
       An appeal was preferred thereagainst by the first respondent before the High Court which was dismissed.
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
       Result:
       Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Marathwada Sarvodya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal is a public Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter called, for the sake of brevity, ‘the Act’) as also the Societies Registration Act, 1850. Its office is situated at Partur, District Jalna in the State of Maharashtra. Itwas created inter alia for the purpose of imparting education to the children of the rural area. The constitution of the Trust provides for 15 life members out of which 13 would be the ex-officio members of the Executive Committee and the other two would be the co-opted members from amongst the General Members elected by the majority of the life members of the Executive Committee which is an elected body. The tenure of the elected body is five years. Members of the Managing Committee were elected in an election held on 30th June, 1996. However, before expiry of its term of five years, respondent No.1 submitted his resignation on 31st December, 1999. A change report to that effect was filed and approved by the competent authority under the Act.

3. Fresh elections took place on or about 26th June, 2001. The term of the said Committee expired in 2006. Again elections were held in the year 2006. However, after the elections were held in 2001, a change report had been submitted. It was accepted by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Jalna on 5th August, 2002. It is stated that about 82 meetings were held thereafter and the first respondent participated in almost all of them. He had, thus, accepted the election of the second respondent, Babasaheb Akat, as the President of the Trust. Since 2001 several changes took place for which ‘change reports’ were filed and accepted by the Assistant Commissioner from time to time.

4. Disputes and differences allegedly arose between the first respondent and the second respondent in October, 2003. Respondent No.1 filed a revision petition before the Joint Charity Commissioner questioning the validity of the elections held in 2001. The Joint Charity Commissioner by its judgment dated 4th June, 2004 opined that the revision application filed by the first respondent was barred by limitation but despite the same proceeded to initiate a purported suo moto proceeding under Section 70-A of the Act. The revision application was allowed inter alia observing that the notice dated 26th June, 2001 calling for the meeting had not been issued as per the by-laws of the society and, thus, the business conducted in that meeting on the basis of such defective notice cannot be said to be legal and valid and in that view of the matter office-bearers had also not been elected validly. It was concluded :-

“The matter may be contested or non contested then also a duty is cast upon lower authority to satisfy that change is occurred as per the by laws of the society and call for some necessary information documents etc for its satisfaction. But here Ld. Lower authority passed mechanically order without any application of mind and therefore the impugned order of the lower authority cannot (sic) be said to be legal and valid.”

The learned Joint Charity Commissioner, however, further held that while filing the revision application, the first respondent did not act bona fide and the same did not advance the cause of justice. The order impugned before him, however, was set aside pointing out the aforesaid irregularities. We may place on record that as the first respondent had approached the revisional authority with a ‘false case’, costs were imposed on him.

5. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, the second respondent filed an application before the District Judge, Jalna. The learned District Judge by his order dated 28th June, 2004 allowed the said application in part and remanded the matter back to the Joint Charity Commissioner with a direction that all the trustees and co-opted members of the Trust be given notice and fresh enquiry under Section 70A of the Act be held and a fresh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 943

Cases Referred (2)