SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Bom) 666

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
Manish Pitale, J.
Abdul Aziz Abdul Majeed Patel - Appellant
Vs.
Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2140 of 2018
Decided On : 25-03-2019

Advocates Appeared:
P.S. Patil, Adv., Raheel A.J. Mirza, Adv., S.M. Vaishnav, Adv.

Headnote:

Society Laws – Elections – By this Writ Petition, the petitioners have challenged judgment and order, passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati in Appeal, whereby appeal filed by respondent no.3 (Reporting Trustee) along with another stood rejected. – The said appellate authority further directed that 11 founder members of the trust i.e. Talha Education and Welfare Society Karajgaon shall hold elections for the Executive Committee as per the provisions of the constitution of the trust. – It is undisputed that a challenge raised by respondent no.2 to the very same impugned order stood repulsed on the ground that election in pursuance of the impugned judgment and order was conducted by the 11 founder members and that change report regarding the same was filed and it is pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner. – Held, Court is of the opinion that the petitioners in the present case were kept sitting on the fence either by respondent no.2 or they themselves chose to do so to subsequently invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court by claiming violation of principles of natural justice. – The approach of the petitioners clearly seems to be to rely upon alleged violation of principles of natural justice as a mantra or incantation, upon the recital of which this Court in writ jurisdiction would set aside the orders passed by the Courts below for giving them an opportunity to set the clock back and keep the litigation festering. – The petitioners cannot be permitted to do so. – In any case, this Court has heard the petitioners on the material that they came to rely upon in the context of bye laws of the trust. – Upon interpretation of Clause 5 of the said bye laws, it cannot be said that they were members of the trust and their rights stood violated by the authorities below by passing the impugned orders. – Impugned order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner was made subject matter of challenge by the Reporting Trustee i.e. respondent no.2 by filing Writ Petition before this Court, which has been already disposed of on the ground that the direction given by the Charity Commissioner in the impugned order of holding elections by 11 founder members in terms of the constitution of the trust has already taken place and a Change Report regarding the same has been filed before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, which is pending consideration. – Court finds that there is no merit in the present case and accordingly it is dismissed – Petition Dismissed

JUDGMENT :

Manish Pitale, J.

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioners have challenged judgment and order dated 21-02-2018, passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati in Appeal No.46 of 2016, whereby appeal filed by respondent no.3 (Reporting Trustee) along with another stood rejected. The said appellate authority further directed that 11 founder members of the trust i.e. Talha Education and Welfare Society Karajgaon shall hold elections for the Executive Committee as per the provisions of the constitution of the trust. It is undisputed that a challenge raised by respondent no.2 to the very same impugned order stood repulsed on the ground that election in pursuance of the impugned judgment and order was conducted by the 11 founder members and that change report regarding the same was filed and it is pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner.

3. The respondent no.2 claiming to be reporting trustee for an election to the Executive Committee allegedly held in November, 2009 had filed a change report under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, claiming that the petitioners and others had been inducted as members of the trust and that only two of the original founder members i.e. respondent no.2 and his wife along with the said new members had participated in the election leading to change in the trust which was required to be approved. By judgment and order dated 21-12-2015, the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Amravati, rejected the Change Report, inter alia, finding that the reporting trustee i.e. respondent no.2 had failed to produce any material to demonstrate that new members, including the petitioners herein, were inducted in the trust prior to the election that was held in November, 2009. On recording a finding against the alleged change submitted by respondent no.2, the said Change Report stood rejected.

4. Aggrieved by the same, respondent no.2 and his wife, also claiming to be an office bearer pursuant to the said election held in November, 2009, filed Appeal No.46 of 2016, before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati. In this appeal, it was contended that the Assistant Charity Commissioner had committed an error in ignoring the fact that the petitioners and some others had been inducted as the members of the trust and that the Change Report had been wrongly rejected. By impugned judgment order dated 21-0-2018, the Joint Charity Commissioner (appellate Authority) dismissed the appeal. While doing so, the Appellate Authority also categorically found that the reporting trustee had not only failed to produce any material before the Assistant Charity Commissioner regarding the petitioners and others being inducted as members in terms of the constitution of the trust, but even before the appellate authority the respondent no.2-reporting trustee had failed to produce any such material. Thereafter, upon considering the merits of the matter, the appellate authority found that there was no substance in the appeal and thereby dismissed the appeal and also gave a consequent direction to the 11 founder members of the trust to hold elections to the Executive Committee in terms of the Constitution of the trust. As noted above such elections were indeed conducted, in respect of which a Change Report was filed and it is pending for consideration before the Assistant Charity Commissioner.

5. The main ground raised in the present appeal on behalf of the petitioners is that when the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and the Joint Charity Commissioner had an adverse effect on them, inasmuch as they were held not to be the members of the said trust, they were entitled to be heard and that if such hearing had been granted, they would have placed material on record to demonstrate that they had been inducted as members of the trust and that the order passed by the Assistant Charity C





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top