The binding nature of resolutions passed in meetings held under specific rules prevails over general quorum requirements, as per the principle of Generalia Specialibus non-derogant.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 28.03.2016 passed by learned District Judge-4, Nanded in Misc. RJE No.173 of 2011. The learned Judge by way of the impugned order was pleased to dismiss the application filed under section 72-1 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act [for short “the BPT Act”].

2. The facts in short are that this appellant/original applicant filed an application under section 22 of the BPT Act, before the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nanded, Division – Nanded, for effecting change occurred in general body meeting dated 04.08.2009. It is case of the appellant that the appellant and the respondents are the members of the trust, namely, Shri Datta Education Society, Talni, Tq. Hadgaon. The same is registered under the Societies Registration Act as well as under the BPT Act bearing registration No. F-92 (Nanded). The elections to the managing committee were not held since incorporation of the trust. In Inquiry No.691 of 1981 and 692 of 1981, the Asstt. Charity Commissioner had given directions to conduct election, however, inspite of that the then President and Secretary did not hold election and instead filed an appeal to the Joint Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad. In an appeal one Mr.Gimekar came to be appointed as an Election Officer by the Jt. Charity Commissioner. However, since the President and Secretary did not pay expenses, the election could not be conducted. The President and Secretary filed Appeals RJE Nos.43 of 1991 and 47 of 1991. Those appeals also came to be rejected, directing to conduct election. It is only thereafter election was held. After that election Inquiry No.730 of 2005 was filed to report the change. The same, however, came to be rejected.

3. After rejection of the report in Inquiry No.730 of 2005, present appellant along with one more member, namely, Achyut Tawade requested the President and Secretary to conduct election of the Managing Committee. However, same was not done. Ganesh Tawade and four other persons applied for primary membership of the trust. However, those were not accepted by the President and Secretary. Even no meeting was called to decide those applications. Those persons, therefore, gave application to the appellant. The appellant requested the President and the Secretary to call for the meeting to consider the application. Since no meetings were held, on 05.06.2009 the appellant gave requisition notice to the President and Secretary. Same was received by them on 27.06.2009. Applicant – Achyut Tawade also issued notices to the committee members. The committee members refused to accept those notices. The notices were, therefore, served by post.

4. Since inspite of requisition, no meeting was called, so on 04.07.2009 the meeting of the Managing Committee was conducted and new members were enrolled by accepting membership fees to the society on 06.07.2009. Thereafter, again notice of general body meeting was issued on 04.08.2009. In that meeting a new managing committee came to be elected and thus the change report was filed by the present appellants.

5. The non-applicants resisted the said inquiry, submitting that other member Achyut Tawade had not paid subscription of life membership. Other members at Sr. Nos.7 to 11 were not legal and valid members. The notices dated 27.06.2009 and 28.07.2009 were not received by them. The applicants had no right to issue those notices requisitioning a meeting. The requisition was not made to the President and the Secretary. It is submitted that the meetings dated 04.07.2009 and 04.08.2009 were not in accordance with the constitution of the trust. The meetings were illegal for want of quorum. The meeting dated 04.08.2009 was not held by prior notice of 14 days, served upon the members. The meetings were not held under the chairmanship of the president in the office of the trust and prayed for rejection of the change report.

6. The parties led evidence. The appellant got himself examined along with one Madhu