IMPORTANT POINT
Disagreement with exercise of discretion does not necessarily lead to conclusion of maladministration unless exercise of discretion is perverse.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 92 – Appointment of new trustees of Sri Aurobindo Ashram – Trustees of a trust are entitled to a wide discretion in administration of a trust – Alleged failure to take steps to ban a book that is critical of philosophical and spiritual guru of a Trust would not fall within compass of administration of Trust – Disagreement with exercise of discretion does not necessarily lead to conclusion of maladministration unless exercise of discretion is perverse – It might be an omission of exercise of proper discretion on part of trustees but certainly not an omission touching upon administration of Trust – However, matter is very much alive before Orissa High Court and it is for that Court to take a final call on legality or otherwise of action taken by concerned authorities in State in prohibiting availability of objectionable book – Until that decision is taken by High Court, it would be premature to hold that book is objectionable enough as not to be made available to readers – Until that determination is made it would be premature to expect appellants to take any precipitate action in the matter against author – High Court wrongly held that failure of appellants to take initiative in banning objectionable book gives rise to a cause of action for removal of trustees of Trust and settling a scheme for its administration – High Court ought to have allowed application filed by appellants for revocation of leave granted to respondents to initiate proceedings under Section 92 of CPC – Judgment and order of High Court set aside and application filed by appellants for revocation of leave allowed. (Paras 30, 32, 34 and 37)
       (2008) 4 SCC 115 ; MANU/TN/0541/2013 ; (1974) 2 SCC 695 ; (2008) 4 SCC 115 – Referred.
       Facts of Case:
       Matter concerning removal of existing Trustee is involved in present litigation. An individual who had been allowed to reside, use and benefit from facilities and resources of Ashram to pursue spiritual enlightenment through Sri Aurobindo’s philosophy had instead alleged to have flagrantly misused Ashram’s name and its resources to launch a disparaging attack on soul and foundations of Ashram, its faith, tenets and beliefs
       Findings of Court:
       We were invited to express a view on constitutional freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution. It is not at all necessary for us to do so. Orissa High Court might be called upon to do so, depending on views of the contesting parties, one of whom is author of objectionable book. We express no opinion on the issue and leave the matter at that.
       This being our conclusion with regard to the first grievance of respondents, their second grievance is rather premature. It would arise only if and when appropriate directions are issued by Orissa High Court in pending litigation.
       Result – Appeal allowed.

Judgment :

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The dispute that has arisen in this appeal is one that could have and ought to have been settled in the first instance in the Trial Court. Unfortunately, the feelings (if not the animosity) between the parties have run so high that any meaningful discussion between them to sort out the pending issues has been ruled out. When feelings are strong (and get further hardened over time) and tempers are high, there is a loss of balance and equilibrium. It is unfortunate that this state of mind has persisted with both parties who are well educated and perhaps have a philosophical and spiritual bent of mind, being trustees and residents of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram in Pondicherry and followers of Sri Aurobindo.

3. On our part, we attempted to amicably sort out the problem between the parties, but one of them refused to appreciate the meaning of ‘dissociation’ while the other expressed the view that mere dissociation was not enough and there must be condemnation! At the end of the day, we felt that each party wanted to score a brownie point over the other, little realizing that while they would be left with some ephemeral brownie points, the brownies (and the cream) would be shared by somebody else. In another decision altogether, this Court had occasion to remark that public trusts for charitable and religious purpose are run for the benefit of the public. No individual should take benefit from them. If the persons in management of the trusts are subjected to multiplicity of legal proceedings, funds which are to be used for charitable or religious purposes would be wasted on litigation. [Vidyodaya Trust v. Mohan Prasad R, (2008) 4 SCC 115] How true.

4. It is time for all of us, litigants, lawyers and judges to introspect and decide whether a litigation being pursued is really worth the while and alternatively whether an amicable dispute resolution mechanism could be availed of to settle the dispute to the satisfaction of the litigants. Most problems have a positive solution and a concerted effort must be made by all concerned to find that solution of least resistance to the problem. This is not only in the interest of the parties involved but also in the larger interest of the justice delivery system.

The facts

5. The respondents are residents of or are otherwise concerned with the Sri Aurobindo Ashram in Pondicherry. They filed a civil suit being O.S. No. 15/2010 [Subsequently renumbered as O.S. No.15/2011] before the District Judge, Pondicherry under the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’). [92. Public charities. – (1) In the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the Advocate-General, or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the leave of the Court, may institute a suit, whether contentious or not, in the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in that behalf by the State Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the trust is situate to obtain a decree –

(a) removing any trustee;

(b) appointing a new trustee;

(cc) directing a trustee who has been removed or a person who has ceased to be a trustee, to deliver possession of any trust property in his possession to the person entitled to the possession of such property;

(d) directing accounts and inquiries;

(e) declaring what proportion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust;

(f) authorising the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged;

(g) settling a scheme; or

(h) granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may req

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2016 Supreme(SC) 5

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAMadan B. Lokur, S.A. Bobde, JJ.Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust and Ors. – AppellantsVersusR. Ramanathan and Ors. – RespondentsCivil Appeal No.12 of 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 25788 of 2013)Decided on : 05-01-2016

IMPORTANT POINTDisagreement with exercise of discretion does not necessarily lead to conclusion of maladministration unless exercise of discretion is perverse.

Cases Referred (3)

Judicial Analysis

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Madan B. Lokur, S.A. Bobde, JJ.
Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
R. Ramanathan and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.12 of 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 25788 of 2013)
Decided on : 05-01-2016

IMPORTANT POINT
Disagreement with exercise of discretion does not necessarily lead to conclusion of maladministration unless exercise of discretion is perverse.