JUDGMENT (PER : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)

1. In all the above three Appeals, the Appellants are challenging the order dated 5th April,2007 passed by the learned single Judge in Misc.Petition No.17 of 2006. We have heard all the learned Counsel as well as parties in person mentioned hereinabove. The brief facts pertaining to Misc.Petition No.17 of 2006 are, that the Petitioners at the time of filing of the said Petition were six trustees for the time being of the funds and immovable Properties of the Parsee Panchayat of Bombay. Hereinafter referred to as the "BPP" Scheme.

2. The petitioners in Miscellaneous Petition No.17 of 2006 are the six trustees for the time being of the Funds and Immovable Properties of the Parsee Panchayat of Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the BPP). The Scheme for the Election of Trustees of the BPP (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) was originally sanctioned by this Court on 18/06/1910 in Suit No.689 of 1906 and thereafter amended from time to time by this Court. The necessity for filing this petition had arisen in the following circumstances:

a) The petition to carry out the last amendments to the Scheme was filed on 27.1.2000. During this period, the petitioners allege that the Parsee community has developed a very strong consensus that the trustees should be elected by a system of universal adult franchise. The same has met with the approval of the petitioners by virtue of their unanimous resolution dated 4.10.2006.

b) Under the present scheme, the trustees are elected by an Anjuman committee consisting of both elected and Donor members. The elected members of this committee are elected by the Parsee community in general. The electorate numbers approximately 18,000. There are generally 6,000-7000 voters as well as nominated candidates, out of which a total of 3,000 are elected as elected members of the Anjuman Committee. The petitioners contend that this situation is anomalous.

c) Since 2006, differences arose among the petitioners interse which led to petitioners No.1,4,5 and 6 submitting their letters of resignation dated 20.6.2006 and 19.6.2006 respectively. However, before the letters were accepted, the matter was resolved through the intervention of community leaders and the four trustees decided to continue as trustees. Chamber summons No.899 of 2006 was taken out by some community members in Miscellaneous Election Petition No.4 of 2000 praying for a declaration that these four trustees can no longer continue in office. This was dismissed by this Court by its order dated 21.8.2006.

d) In the earlier Miscellaneous Election Petition No.4 of 2000, an amendment was sought by the then trustees to provide that no person who has been a trustee for a total three terms or for the total number of 21 years shall be eligible for re-election. However, when the Scheme was sanctioned by this Hon’ble Court by its order dated 1.4.2005, the wording of the order seems to suggest that even as a trustee whose term of office has not expired must resign prematurely as soon as he completed 21 years in office. The term of petitioner No.1 will expire on 2.8.2007, if one considers the completion of 21 years in office. However, his third term would normally have expired only on 2.8.2010 since his first term under the Scheme was for 10 years. The petitioners allege that a large proportion of the Parsee community profess confidence in Petitioner No.1 and wish him to continue in office up to August, 2010.

e) Clause 70 of the Scheme authorises the Trustees to, by a majority, at any time, submit to a Judge of the High Court in Chambers for sanction of this Scheme provided the Trustees give a four clear days notice in writing to the Charity Commissioner o f any application intended to be made by the Trustees under this rule, setting forth in full the proposals to which the sanction of the Court is intended to be asked and the Charity Commissioner and the Charity Commissioner is entitled to appear and be heard on any such a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document