R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---Heard learned Advocates for the parties.

2. Persued the records.

3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.

4. The petitioners challenge the order dated 22nd May, 2001 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner Beed being contrary to the basic principles of natural justice as well as contrary to the provision of law contained in the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act").

5. Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on perusal of the record it is seen that, the Assistant Charity Commissioner Beed by the impugned order, while allowing the application, filed by respondent Nos. 4(a) and (b) under section 41-A of the said At, had sought to appoint a Committee of three members for the administration of the trust and its property in question and to maintain the necessary accounts in relation to the income and expenditure of the trust. It is the contention of the petitioners that the said order has been passed without hearing the petitioners and that the Assistant Charity Commissioner has no power to appoint any such Committee under section 41-A of the said Act. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 4(a) that, the Assistant Charity Commissioner is duly empowered to take every such necessary steps for proper administration of the trust and that would include appointment of Committee of three members. Reliance is sought to be placed by the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 4(a) on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of (Nathmal Kisanla Goenka and another v. Assistant Charity Commissioner, Akola)1, reported in 1994 Mh.L.J. 303 and on one unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of (Bahujan Shikshan Sangh, Ahmednagar v. Assistant Charity Commissioner, Ahmednagar)2, Writ Petition No. 2688 of 1998 delivered on 18-8-1998.

6. At this stage it is to be noted that, there is no dispute between the parties that the petitioners had submitted a change report being Inquiry No. 269 of 2001 and it is still pending for approval by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. Application under section 41-A filed by respondent Nos. 4(a) and (b) bears Inquiry No. 276 of 2001. The said application was filed on the ground that the petitioners had illegally enrolled some members and they were all close relations of the petitioners and besides that they had not submitted audited accounts for the period from 1-4-1998 to 31-3-2000 and there was mismanagement of the trust by the petitioners, the impugned order apparently discloses that, the same has been passed merely holding that there being something fishy about the working of the Secretary i.e. petitioner No. 1 or the working of the Secretary being somewhat doubtful.

7. Section 41-A(1) of the said Act provides that subject to the provisions of the said Act, the Charity Commissioner may from time to time issue directions to any trustee of a public trust or any person connected therewith, to ensure that the trust is properly administered, and the income thereof is properly accounted for or duly appropriated and applied to the objects and for the purposes of the trust; and the Charity Commissioner may also give directions to the trustees or such person if he finds that any property of the trust is in danger of being wasted, damaged, alienated or wrongfully sold, removed or disposed of. Sub-section (2) provides that it shall be the duty of every trustee or of such person to comply with the directions issued under sub-section (1).

8. Apparently, thereof, section 41-A deals with the power of the Commissioner to issue directions for proper administration of the trust. The phraseology used in the said section nowhere discloses any power being given to the Commissioner to appoint any Committee for the purpose of administration of the trust. On the contrary, it speaks about directions to any trustee of the trust, or person

Click Here to Read the rest of this document