Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 978
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
SHALINI PHANSALKAR JOSHI, J.
Adv. Babasaheb Wasade and Others – Appellants
VERSUS
Manohar Gangadhar Muddeshwar and Others – Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO. 811 of 2016
Decided On : 20-07-2017
For the Appellant : Shri. S.V. Manohar, Sr. Counsel with Shri. S.D. Abhyankar, Counsel
For the Respondent: Shri. P.A. Gode, Counsel, Shri. M.R. Joharapurkar, Counsel
The main legal point established in the judgment is that members of a society, despite not being entitled to vote, are still entitled to receive notice of meetings as part of their rights as members. The judgment also emphasizes the duty of the Assistant Charity Commissioner to ensure adherence to the Trust's constitution and legal provisions.
Headnote:
Public Trust - Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 - Section 72 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application of Section 72 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 and its interplay with the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The court also referred to Section 15 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and its interpretation in the case of Shri Sarbjit Singh and others Vs. All India Fine Arts and Crafts Society and others (ILR 1989 II Delhi 585). The court emphasized the legal provisions regarding membership, subscription fees, and the consequences of non-payment, as well as the principles of natural justice in expulsion or removal of members from a society.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal concerned the election of the Executive Committee of a registered Public Trust. The dispute arose when certain members objected to the election process, claiming they did not receive notice of the meeting and were not entitled to vote due to non-payment of subscription fees. The Assistant Charity Commissioner rejected the Change Report, but the Joint Charity Commissioner allowed the appeal. The District Judge-4 set aside the JCC's order and restored the ACC's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the objectors, despite not being entitled to vote, were still entitled to receive notice of the meeting as members of the Trust. The court held that the meeting was not convened legally and the resolutions passed were invalid due to the objectors being deprived of participation. The court also upheld the ACC's decision and emphasized the duty of the ACC to ensure adherence to the Trust's constitution and legal provisions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the objectors, who had ceased paying subscription fees, were entitled to receive notice of the meeting for the election of the Executive Committee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the objectors, despite not being entitled to vote, were still entitled to receive notice of the meeting as members of the Trust. The court emphasized the principles of natural justice in expulsion or removal of members from a society and the duty of the ACC to ensure adherence to the Trust's constitution and legal provisions.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the interim order was extended for a period of four weeks.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29/07/2016 passed by District Judge-4, Chandrapur, in M.C.A. No. 50/2016.
2. By the impugned order, District Judge-4, Chandrapur has allowed the application/appeal filed under Section 72 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter will be referred to as “Act” for convenience), thereby setting aside the judgment and order of Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur (for short, “JCC”) in Appeal No. 29/2010 dated 12/04/2016. By the said order, the JCC has allowed the appeal filed under Section 17 of the Act, challenging the order dated 16/06/2010 passed in Change Report Inquiry No. 668/2002 by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Chandrapur (for short, “ACC”) and accepted the said Change Report, which was rejected by the ACC, vide his order dated 16/09/2010.
3. Brief facts of the appeal, can be stated as follows :
Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Mul is a registered Public Trust, bearing PTR No. F41(C). Initially, the said Trust was registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Trust is having its own bye-laws for running its day-to-day administration. As per the last entry in Schedule-I of the Trust, for the year 1998, appellant no.1 is working President of the Trust. As the election of the Executive Committee of the Trust was not held since long time and the recorded Secretary, President and Vice President of the Trust were also no more, the members of the General Body of the Trust, by letter dated 20/08/2002, requested the appellant no.1, in his capacity as working President to call General Body Meeting for the election of the Executive Committee of the Trust. Accordingly, appellant no.1, by the notice dated 03/09/2002, called the General Body Meeting of the Trust on 08/09/2002 at Panchayat Raj Prashikshan Kendra, Mul. The notice of the said Meeting was sent to all its members by hand delivery and by Under Certificate of Posting. In the said General Body Meeting held on 08/09/2002, a new Executive Committee was elected unanimously. The Change Report no. 668/2002 pertaining to the said election came to be filed before the ACC.
4. The erstwhile members of the Trust, namely, Shri Rishidev Choudhary, Narayan Choudhary, Muralidhar Patil, Dhanji Shah, Vinayak Dhote, Dattatraya Nagose and one Shrawan Pendholkar, however filed objections to the said Change Report. The main grievance raised by the objectors was that they had not received the notice of the Meeting dated 08/09/2002, though they were the members of the Trust, and hence whatever resolution was passed in the said Meeting, was not at all legal, proper and correct. As against it, the contention of the appellants was that none of the objectors had paid the subscription fees of their membership as per clause (5) of the bye-laws of the Trust, hence they could not be counted as the members of the Trust on the date of election, therefore, there was no question of calling them to remain present for the said Meeting.
5. Another contention raised by the objectors was that appellant no.1 was not competent to convene the Meeting in his capacity as working President; only the Secretary of the Trust could convene such Meeting, and therefore, the Meeting itself was illegal.
6. The third contention was that there were irregularities in the conduct of the Meeting, which were going to the root of the matter and as a result of it, even the appointment of the members to the Executive Committee was also not proper and the said executive Meeting had no right to pass any resolution.
7. Before the learned ACC, Chandrapur, objector no.1 Rishidev Choudhary and objector no.2 Dhanji Shah examined themselves in support of their objections. As against it, appellant no.1 also led his own evidence and also led the evidence of Shri Prakash Virgamgade.
8. On appreciation of this evidence, learned ACC was pleased to hold that as the objectors, who were very much members of the Executive Committee, were not issued notice of
