The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice, segregating the roles of the trustees, and ensuring proper service of notice and hearing before passing any order under Section 41D of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Judgment & Order shall dispose of Writ Petition Nos. 2080 of 2021, 2669 of 2021 and 2671 of 2021. The impugned order in all three Writ Petitions is a common order delivered on 13.08.2021 below Exh 16 under Section 41D of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short, “the said Act”). By virtue of the said order, the opponent Trustees who are Petitioners before the Court have been held responsible under the provisions of Sections 41D(1)(c), (1)(d) and (1)(f) of the said Act and draft charges below Exh. 16 are approved by Respondent No. 1. The impugned order is a composite order in respect of 5 Trustees, three of whom are before the Court in 3 different Writ Petitions.

2. At the outset, the position in respect of the Petitioners before me is required to be clarified. In so far as Writ Petition No. 2669/2021 and 2671/2021 are concerned, the admitted position is that both Petitioners were heard by Respondent No. 1 before passing the impugned order. This position is admitted by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective Petitioners. However in so far as Writ Petition No. 2080 of 2021 is concerned, a preliminary objection is raised by Mr. Purandare, inter alia, stating that Petitioner was not even served with the copy of the notice and was also not even heard by the Respondent No. 1 before passing the impugned order. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein are the original complainants before the Respondent No. 1.

3. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that an application below Exh. 16 for framing draft charges was filed by the Applicants (Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 herein) proposing framing of draft charges against all Trustees of the “Shifakhana-e-Saifiyah Trust”. According to Applicants therein, Respondent Trustees namely Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 therein continuously neglected their duty and were guilty of committing breach of their duty and breach of trust as trustees under Section 41D(1)(c) in running and managing the affairs of the medical nursing home illegally and unlawfully without seeking change of user and registration with the Health Department of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. Further charge against Respondents therein was under Section 41D(1)(d) that they were running and managing the medial nursing home from residential premises and thus, dealt with the Trust property improperly without change of user and without obtaining registration and therefore guilty of malfeasance and misfeasance by earning and misappropriating the income derived from running the medical nursing home. The next charge against the Respondents therein was to the effect that they were running and managing the medical nursing home from residential premises without permission/consent of the 51st Dai al-Mutlaw Dr. Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb (R.A.) (His Holiness) for running the medical nursing home. The impugned order further reveals the defence taken by the Respondents therein in defence of their case. I need not detain myself with the defence of the Respondents therein. Three out of the said 5 Respondents before the Authority are Petitioners before me. Two remaining Trustees have not filed any Petition.

4. The fact that Petitioner - Shahzada Aliasgar Bhaisaheb Kalimuddin in WP/2080/2021 has not been heard by Respondent No. 1 is admitted by the learned Government Pleader as time was given to the pleader to confirm the said fact on the last date of hearing with specific directions to that effect. Mr. Gore and Mr. Upadhye, learned AGPs have confirmed that Petitioner in WP/2080/2021 was not heard and only Petitioners in the remaining two Petitions were heard. This fact further stands admitted on reading the counter of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 which states that before the Respondent No. 1, only Respondent Nos. 4, 5 (Trustees) and 7 (Trust) were present. Impugned order is however indicting all 5 Trustees of the Trust. The impugned order thus, prima facie, is not sustainable as it violates the basic principles of natural jus