Back
2015 Supreme(Bom) 470
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
A.S. OKA & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ.
Rajabhau Damodar Raikar – Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Charity Commissioner, Pune & Others – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5105 of 2014
Decided On : 24-03-2015
For the Petitioner:Prathmesh Bhangude i/b. S.B. Deshmukh, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, M.P. Thakur, AGP, R4 to R6, S.A. Javale, Advocate.
Headnote:Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 - Sections 17 and 22. - See Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, Sections 19(5), 20 and 21(2).
Bombay Public Trust Rules, 1951 - Rule 7. - See Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, Section 19(5), 20 and 21(2).
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Sections 19(5), 20 and 21(2) - Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, Sections 17 and 22 - Bombay Public Trusts Rules, 1951, Rule 7 - Jurisdiction of Lok Adalat. - Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to decide change report filed under Section 22 of Act on merits. - On conjoint reading of various sub-section of Section 20 of 1987 Act it appears that a Lok Adalat can dispose of cases only by way of settlement or compromise. Even sub-section (5) of Section 19 of the said Act makes this aspect of the limitation on the powers of Lok Adalat very clear a change report, whether contested or not, has to be decided after holding an inquiry in a manner provided in Rule 7 of the Bombay Public Trusts Rules, 1951. No change report can be accepted unless the Assistant Charity Commissioner or Deputy Charity Commissioner, as the case may be, after holding an inquiry, comes to a conclusion that the change as reported has occurred. Sub-section (3) of Section 22 requires findings to be recorded with reasons while disposing of the change reports whether there is a contest or not. The Lok Adalat has no power to make an adjudication by following the procedure which is required to be followed in case of trial of suits. Therefore, the Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to decide the change report filed under Section 22 of 1950 Act on merits.
A.S. Oka, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner.
2. Notice for final disposal of the Petition was issued by order dated 18th November, 2014.
3. Today an affidavit in reply has been filed by the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 who are contesting Respondents.
4. The challenge in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is to the order passed by the Maha Lok Adalat on 16th September, 2012 on a change report filed by the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (in short “the said Act of 1950”).
5. The order passed by the Maha Lok Adalat on 16th September, 2012 reads thus:
Matter is put up before Maha Lok-Adalat on 16-09-2012
1. The application is filed to report the change in respect of death/change in Trustee Committee/change in address.
2. In support of the application, the Applicant has filed copy of previous change report/death extract/proof of change in address/copy of notice/service proof/attendance roll/copy of proceeding book/no objection of outgoing trustees/consent of incoming trustee and affidavit.
3. The matter is uncontested. All these documents collectively show that the trust has followed due process to report the change. Hence order:
ORDER
1. The application is allowed.
2. The reported change has been accepted.
3. Necessary entry be made in P.T. Register.
4. Disposed in Maha LokAdalat.
6. The issue which arises for consideration in this Petition is “whether a Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (in short “the said Act of 1987”) is empowered to adjudicate upon a change report filed under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 on merits?”
7. Though an Appeal is provided under the said Act of 1950 against an order passed on a change report, in view of sub-section (2) of section 21 of the said Act of 1987, the remedy of Appeal is specifically barred.
8. It will be necessary to make a reference to Section 20 of the said Act of 1987. Sub-section 1 and 2 of Section 20 of the said Act of 1987 deal with the power to make a reference to the Lok Adalat. Sub-sections 3 to 7 of Section 20 of the said Act of 1987 read thus:
(3) Where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) or where a reference has been made to it under sub-section (2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties.
(4) Every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any reference before it under this Act, act with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles.
(5) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the record of the case shall be returned by it to the Court, from which the reference has been received under subsection (1) for disposal in accordance with law.
(6) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, in a matter referred to in sub-section (2), that Lok Adalat shall advice the parties to seek remedy in a Court.
(7) Where the record of the case is returned under sub-section (5) to the Court, such Court shall proceed to deal with such case from the stage, which was reached before such reference under sub-section (1).”
9. Sub-section 5 of Section 20 of the said Act of 1987 provides that where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the record of the case is required to be returned by it to the Court, from which the reference has been received under sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the said Act of 1987 for disposal in accordance with law.
10. Sub-section 7 of Section 20 of the said Act of 1987 provides that where the record of the case is returned under sub-section (5) to the Court, such Cour
