IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
Adv. Arun son of Bhimrao Shelke & Ors. - Appellants.
Versus
Adv. Pradeep son of Prabhakarrao Mahalle & Ors. - Respondents.
Second Appeal No. 22 of 2016 with Second Appeal No. 27, 111, 112 of 2016
Decided On : 31-07-2017
In law the expression "person" refers to any entity that is recognized by law as having rights and duties of a human being. Said expression includes any legal person besides a natural person. Neither an ordinary member nor an employee of the society who falls in Clauses 1 to 7 of Article 5 are entitled to contest elections to the Executive Council. If it was the intention of the framers that even juristic persons who fall in Clauses 1 to 7 of Article 5 should not be eligible to contest such election, the same would have been specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
It is, however, silent in that regard. Thus, excluding a juristic person from contesting the elections despite being a member under Clauses 1 to 7 of Article 5 would result in implied exclusion. In absence of any clear indication in that regard, the Court would be slow in interpreting the expression "person" in a narrow manner that would result in implied exclusion of juristic bodies. There is nothing specific in the articles of the Constitution that would disentitle the representatives of juristic persons who are members falling in Clauses 1 to 7 of Article 5 of the Constitution from contesting elections to the Executive Council.
An interpretation that widens the net of membership of the Trust in absence of any contrary indication in the Constitution should be preferred. Further an interpretation which helps in achieving the objects of the Trust and enables it to exist in perpetuity should be preferred rather than an interpretation which narrows down its scope of affairs. The expression "person" would include a juristic person and a representative of such juristic person who fall in Clauses 1 to 7 of Article 5 of the Constitution would, therefore, be entitled to contest the elections to the Executive Council.
01. Since all these appeals raise a challenge to the judgment of the learned Principal District Judge, Amravati, in Misc. Civil Application Nos. 147, 151, 167, 181 and 182 all of 2015, they are being decided by this common judgment.
02. Admit. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties.
03. The dispute pertains to Change Report proceedings filed under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1951 [for short “the said Act”] with regard to elections of the Executive Council of Shri Shivaji Education Society, Amravati [for short “the Trust”] for the term 2012-2017.
04. The Trust is registered under the provisions of the said Act as also under the provisions of the Society's Registration Act, 1860. Its affairs are governed by its Constitution [as amended in the year 1967]. For brevity, facts in Second Appeal No. 22 of 2016 are being referred to. The elections of the Executive Council of the Trust for the term commencing from 2012 for a period of five years were due. Accordingly, the Voters’ List came to be published by the Executive Council on 31st December, 2011. This list became final on 16th January, 2012. Thereafter, two Returning Officers came to be appointed for conducting the elections that were scheduled on 30th and 31st May, 2012. On 30th May, 2012, nomination papers were filed by interested candidates. Amongst them, Shri P.P. Mahalle [respondent no.1] filed nomination for the post of Vice-President, Shri Hemant Kalmegh [respondent no.4] for the post of Member and Shri Sanjay Jagtap for the post of Treasurer. These nominations were filed as representatives of Corporate bodies. The Returning Officers, however, rejected the said nomination forms on the ground that said representatives were not competent to contest the elections on behalf of the Corporate bodies. The respondent no.1 along with two others filed Misc. Application No. 410 of 2012 under provisions of Section 22 of the said Act, in which it was prayed that the legality and validity of the alleged change that had occurred on 30th and 31st May, 2012 be enquired into and it was further prayed that the rejection of the nomination papers of the applicants be declared to be illegal. Replies were filed in these proceedings by the contesting parties. In the meanwhile, another Change Report bearing No. 624 of 2012 was filed by the reporting trustee seeking to report the change that had occurred pursuant to the aforesaid elections. The respondent no.1 sought his addition as an objector in the change report proceedings. He also moved an application for consolidation of the proceedings in Change Report No. 410 of 2012 with Change Report No. 624 of 2012. This request came to be accepted.
05. The learned Asstt. Charity Commissioner, Amravati, considered both the Change Reports together and by order dated 20th May, 2015, rejected Change Report No. 624 of 2012. Further directions were issued to the Secretary of the Society to hold fresh elections for the term from 2012 to 2017. Other directions as to the manner of holding these elections came to be issued. The reporting trustee along with others challenged this order by filing appeals under Section 70 of the said Act. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner by his judgment dated 27th July, 2015 partly allowed the appeals. The Change Report in so far as election of the President of the Society was concerned was held to be legal and valid. The Executive Council was directed to be reconstituted by holding fresh elections for the posts of Vice-President, Treasurer and Member. Other ancillary directions in that regard came to be issued. The aggrieved parties then approached the District Court for challenging the aforesaid judgment. The learned District Judge by the impugned judgment dated 22nd December, 2015 dismissed all the Misc. Applications as well as Cross-objections. The directions for holding fresh elections were partly modified and a fresh programme in that regard was directed to be published.
Ajay Maken Vs. Adesh Kumar Gupta & another
Aneeta Hada Vs. Godgather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd.
Anil Gupta Vs. Star India Pvt. Ltd. & another
Bharat Aluminum Company Vs. Kaiser Aluminum Technical Services INC
Board of Control for Cricket, India & another Vs. Netaji Cricket Club & others
Devendra Patel Vs. Ram Pal Singh & others
Dulichand Laxminarayan Vs. Commr. Of Income-Tax, Nagpur
Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. & another Vs. State of Gujrat & another
Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. Ltd. & another Vs. Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd.
M. A. Rasheed & others Vs. State of Kerala
Rajendra Prasad Yadav & others Vs. State of M.P. & others
Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar Vs. Som Nath Dass & others
Smt. Damyanti Naranga Vs. The Union of India & others
Smt. Shalini Soni & others Vs. Union of India & others
The Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. & another Vs. State of Gujarat & another
Union of India Vs. K. V. Lakshman & others
Vanmala Manoharrao Kamdi & others Vs. Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur & others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.