The court emphasized the impermissibility of conducting a quasi-judicial enquiry under Section 41A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, while also highlighting the availability of alternate remedies for addressing issues related to membership and election process.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for respective sides heard finally at the admission stage.

2. There is common challenge in both these petitions, hence they are decided together by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience the papers of Writ Petition No. 13572 of 2023 are referred to.

3. The petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 09.10.2023 passed by the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner, Latur (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred as to the “Dy. C. C.”) in Enquiry No. 538 of 2023, directing to conduct elections and simultaneously restricting the election to the members enlisted in Exhibit 46 of Change Report No. 3239 of 2018. The petitioner Mr. Arvind Patil and the respondent No. 3 participated in the proceedings before the Dy. C. C., Latur.

4. The respondent No. 2/Kisan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Udgir (for short ‘Trust’) is registered trust under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 (for the sake of brevity and convenience hereinafter referred as to the ‘Act’). The respondent No. 3 is the Secretary of the trust. The petitioners claim to be the members of the trust, though their membership is disputed. The tenure of the managing committee for the period 2017-2022 has been expired. The elections are due.

5. The respondent No. 3 and petitioner-Mr. Arvind Patil submitted applications to the Dy. C. C. for conducting elections. The application of the respondent No. 3 dated 10.04.2023 was registered as Misc. Application No. 538 of 2023. By order dated 27.07.2023 it was treated to be Suo Motu Enquiry No. 538 of 2023 under Section 41A of the Act. After conducting enquiry, impugned orders are passed. In pursuance of that on 19.10.2023, an election officer declared election programme by public notice, which is at Exhibit – I.

6. The relevant dates stipulated in the programme are as follows :

7. These matters were heard on 03.11.2023, pre-emptorily, when it was a stage of scrutiny of nominations. Both the petitioners not only claim to be valid members, but elected members of the managing committee, though their status is disputed. The litigating parties have referred to different change reports and the orders passed by the competent authorities during the course of their submissions. They have made rival claims for valid list of members. To decide the controversy there is no need to go into the checkered history of the trust.

8. Following are the directions issued by the learned Dy. C. C., Latur by the impugned judgment and order :

(i) Inspector Mr. S. S. Jambutkar shall be appointed as Election Officer.

(ii) The election shall be completed within a period of two months from depositing of expenses.

(iii) The election shall be conducted from valid member’s list which is at Exhibit 46 in Change Report No. 3239 of 2018.

(iv) The Election Officer is entitled to take assistance of police or any other staff.

(v) He shall submit the report at the conclusion of the election.

9. Undisputed facts in the matter are that the tenure of the earlier managing committee was from 21.10.2017 to 20.10.2022. The respondent No. 3 submitted application dated 10.04.2023 referring to Section41A of the Act seeking directions to conduct elections from and amongst the members who had participated in the last election. The petitioner Mr. Arvind Patil also submitted application to the Dy. C. C. on 15.10.2022 to conduct elections. There was demand from