JUDGMENT - A.B. NAIK, J.:---Rule. Rule taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties.

2. A short, but important question is raised in this petition filed by the petitioners is "Whether the Asstt. Charity Commissioner has jurisdiction to entertain an application to set aside ex-parte order passed by him in the enquiry under section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act?"

3. In order to appreciate the above said question, it is necessary to refer the facts which emerge from the record. The Trust, by name "Jijamata Shikshan Sanstha, Sindhkhedraja, having No. PTR F-38(BLD) (hereinafter referred to as "Trust") is registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). According to the Rules Regulations of the Trust, the Trust is managed by the Managing Committee, and the members of the Managing Committee are to be elected by the members of the Trust as per the provisions of Rules and Regulations. It is revealed from record that there are two groups in the Trust claiming to be in-charge of the management of the Trust. As no elections were held for a considerable time, there was an occasion for the Asstt. Charity Commissioner to pass an order under section 41-A of the Act. The said order under section 41 was passed on 7th September, 1999, whereby the Asstt. Charity Commissioner has issued the following directions:---

"1. Issue directions to the non applicant to call and convene the general meeting of the trust for election of the managing committee and the office bearers of the managing committee should be elected as per Rules and Regulations of the Trust.

2. Issue directions to the non applicant to submit change report after the elections of the managing committee as early possible.

3. Issue directions to the non applicant to maintain the account of the trust properly and to submit the audit report of the trust since year 1995-96 towards."

The said directions gave rise to the present dispute. It is the case of the petitioners that according to the directions issued by the Asstt. Charity Commissioner, they have convened a General Body Meeting on 30th September, 2000, whereby the General Body elected the Managing Committee members. It is alleged in the petition that other group, i.e., the present respondents, also convened a General Body Meeting and held the elections in the General Body Meeting which was held on 29th September, 2000. Pursuant to elections which were held on 30th September, 2000, the group headed by the petitioner filed a Change Report under section 22 of the Act, which was numbered as Change Report No. 640 of 2000. Another group on the basis of elections held on 29th September, 2000, filed a change report under section 22, which was numbered a Change Report No. 641 of 2000. It is the contention of the petitioners that in the Change Report filed by the respondents herein, being Change Report No. 641 of 2000, the petitioner No. 1 filed a caveat; but no notice was given either to the petitioner or his Advocate who has lodged a Caveat in Enquiry No. 641 of 2000 filed by another group. The Asstt. Charity Commissioner thereupon proceeded to hear the Change Report No. 641 of 2000 by issuing notice to the concerned. The present petitioner No. 1 was the respondent in Change Report No. 641 of 2000. The Asstt. Charity Commissioner, Buldana, after issuance of notices to the parties, conducted an enquiry and found that though notices were sent to the petitioner No. 1, who was respondent, he did not remain present and accordingly by the order, dated 25th April, 2001, the Asstt. Charity Commissioner accepted change report submitted by the present respondents.

4. According to the petitioner No. 1 that he was not aware about the progress of the Enquiry Application No. 641 of 2000. It is contended by the petitioner No. 1 that Enquiry Application No. 640 of 2000 filed by the present petitioner No. 1 is not yet decided.

5. As stated above, the Asstt. Charity Commissioner, Buldana,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document