Oral Judgment:

By this Writ Petition the petitioners challenge the orders passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner and Joint Charity Commissioner whereby Change Report No. 984 of 1995 was rejected.

2. The facts giving rise to the Writ Petition are as follows:

The story begins with an action in contempt against Ganpat Joshi, Mahadeo Harde, Shashikant Sathe and P. B. Berad in Contempt Petition no. 52 of 1994. This Court on 13.12.1994 directed the Deputy Charity Commissioner to remove Ganpat Joshi, Mahadeo Harade and Shashikant Sathe from the trusteeship. Accordingly in enquiry Deputy Charity Commissioner passed an order on 19.01.1995 removing these three persons from trusteeship. A Change Report No. 316 of 1995 was filed on 31.01.1995 alleging that elections were held on 08.01.1995 and therefore change has occurred. This change was filed by one Arvind Joshi. This change report was rejected on 20.04.1995 and adhoc committee was directed to continued to manage the trust by order dated 12.03.1995. The adhoc committee was reconstituted by appointing D. R. Lohia, Ramesh Sawal, M. B. Nanoti, Lakhichand Dhoble and Kisangopal Gandhi. This Committee was directed to hold elections to manage the trust. Accordingly elections for new managing committee are said to be held on 20.08.1995 and Change Report No. 984 of 1995 is filed. It is this report which is rejected by the Deputy Charity Commissioner, which order was confirmed by the Joint Charity Commissioner.

3. The main grounds upon which the change report was rejected were the enrollment of members in breach of the Resolution passed by the trust and the scheme of the trust and illegal meetings dated 14.03.1995 and 26.03.1995.

4. I have heard Shri Khapre and Shri Manohar learned counsel for petitioners and the respondents. Shri Khapre learned counsel for the petitioners submits that elections were valid and 78 members who were enrolled were infact legally enrolled. His main thrust of the argument was that any person paying a sum of Rs. 250/- and who is Hindu becomes a member and there is no need of ratification or acceptance of membership of such person by managing committee. He invites my attention to the scheme. The dispute relates to members in sympathisers category. Clause IV defines a sympathiser as follows:

“SYMPATHISERS:

Any Hindu who pays Rs.5/per month for a period of 50 months will become sympathiser member of the temple and it is hereby made clear that he will attain the status only after, the amount of Rs. 250/is paid by him fully, and not till then.”

Shri Khapre submits that Clause if read as it is only envisages the applicant being Hindu and he paying Rs. 250/-. According to him there is no requirement under this clause of approval of the membership. He also submits that the Court cannot read something which is not there in this Clause to hold that managing committee should approve the enrollment. Some other aspects need to be seen before validity of enrollment can be judged.

5. Shri Manohar learned counsel submits that enrollment was invalid for many reasons. First, there was a Resolution not to enroll the members, second, that Resolution is not superseded, third, the meeting approving such enrollment was invalid, fourth, a person can become sympathiser member only when he pays Rs.5/- every month for 50 months and he acquires such status upon payment of last or 50th installment, and fifth, there is already a decision of Deputy Charity Commissioner that enrollment of 78 members is invalid in Enquiry No. 8 of 1991.

6. I shall first deal with Shri Khapre’s argument with regard to necessity or otherwise of approval of such enrollment of new members. No doubt there is nothing in the Rule suggesting that enrollment of new members is to be approved by managing committee. The contention however cannot be accepted. Simply because somebody pays a sum of money, he cannot become a member and he cannot foist his membership on those who desire not to be associated with him.