An inquiry under section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act is a judicial inquiry and not merely a factual inquiry. The principles of natural justice have to be complied with in such an inquiry.

Headnote:
PUBLIC TRUSTS ACT - CHANGE REPORT - INQUIRY UNDER SECTION 22 - SCOPE - LEGALITY AND VALIDITY OF CHANGE - JUDICIAL INQUIRY - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS - APPEAL DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:

Dispute arose regarding the election of a new Managing Committee of a public trust. A change report was sent to the Assistant Charity Commissioner under section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, which was accepted without any notice or inquiry. The appellants, who were members of the old Managing Committee, challenged the acceptance of the change report and the election of the new Managing Committee.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the inquiry under section 22 of the Act was not merely a factual inquiry, but a judicial inquiry with an appeal therefrom to the Charity Commissioner and further remedies available under the Act. The Court also held that the principles of natural justice had to be complied with in such an inquiry and that an inquiry behind the back of an aggrieved party was vitiated. The Court further held that the legality and validity of the change in question had to be determined in the inquiry under section 22.
Issues: 1. Whether the inquiry under section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act was limited to the factum of change or also extended to its legality and validity? 2. Whether the principles of natural justice had to be complied with in an inquiry under section 22 of the Act? 3. Whether subsequent developments during the pendency of an appeal could be considered by the Court in moulding its order.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the inquiry under section 22 of the Act was a judicial inquiry and not merely a factual inquiry. The Court also held that the principles of natural justice had to be complied with in such an inquiry. The Court further held that subsequent developments during the pendency of an appeal could be considered by the Court in moulding its order.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that subsequent developments had rendered the question of the legality or otherwise of the impugned order academic.

JUDGMENT - S.C. PRATAP, J.:---This appeal by Jagatnarayansingh Swarupsingh and others directed against the judgment and order dated 21st September 1977 by the learned District Judge, Amravati in application preferred by the Swarupsingh Education Society, Pathrot by its President and Manager Smt. Meenabai Amarsingh Chithore, under section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act raises inter alia, a question of some importance to all public trusts viz. :

In inquiry under section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act related only to the factum of change under consideration or also to is legality and validity ?

2. Facts and circumstances, briefly stated, are as follows :---

Respondent No. 1 Swarupsingh Education Society is a public trust. General Body Meeting thereof was held on 24th February, 1974, inter alia, to elect a new Managing Committee. A new committee was accordingly elected. On 22nd April, 1974 the society sent a change report in that behalf under section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act (hereinafter the Act) to the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Akola. This was registered and accepted on the name day 22nd April, 1974 without any notice, either public or individual, and without any inquiry. When this change report and its acceptance came to the knowledge of the appellants herein, they appealed against the same. This appeal was allowed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner, the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner was set aside and the matter was sent back to him for proper hearing and disposal. This appellate order was challenged by respondent No. 1 trust by an application under section 72 of the Act. The learned District Judge allowed the said application, set aside the appellate order of the Deputy Charity Commissioner and dismissed the non-applicants appeal in question. Hence this appeal therefrom by the original non-applicants.

3. Mr. Chandurkar the learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the learned District Judge erred in reversing the finding and order of the Deputy Charity Commissioner on the question of limitation in filling the appeal. Going through the judgments of the Deputy Charity Commissioner and the learned District Judge respectively, I do feel that this certainly was not a case fro interference by the learned District Judge with the discretion well exercised by the Deputy Charity Commissioner who had in fact not only concluded that the appeal was filed within limitation but had also added that in case it was held to be beyond time, he would condone the delay in filing the same. Whether there is or is not a cause sufficient for condonation of delay, is best judged by the Court initially called upon to consider the same. Discretion exercised, particularly in favour of condonation, should normally not be interfered with unless well settled principles stand violated. Such indeed was not the case here. On the contrary, undisputed position herein was that neither intimation of the report nor its acceptance was sent to the appellants. If, in these circumstances, they contended on affidavit by least one of them that their appeal was filed within the period of limitation after knowledge of the change report and its acceptance or that, in the alternative, delay be opened and if, in the exercise of his own judicial discretion, the Deputy Charity Commissioner thought fit to accept the said contention, this surely was not a case for interference. Discretion was well and properly exercised. The ex parte order stood set aside and the matter want back for decision on merits after notice and opportunity to all concerned. Condonation thus advanced the ends of justice.

4. Mr. Holey the learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 contended, however, that delay apart, there was yet another hurdle across the appellants, viz. as members of the new Managing Committee were not made parties to the appeal before the Deputy Charity Commissioner, the said appeal was bad due to their non-joinder. This contention, however

Click Here to Read the rest of this document