IMPORTANT POINT
The validity of an election under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act is upheld even if there are procedural objections, provided that the majority outcome is not affected by such objections.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard.

2. RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

3. The judgment and order dtd. 30/12/2019 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur in appeal No.187 of 2019 reversing the judgment and order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nagpur accepting the change report filed under Sec. 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1950"), is under challenge in this writ petition.

4. The petitioner who claimed to be trustees of the trust namely Nispruha Education Society filed a proceeding under Sec. 41- A of the Act of 1950 for direction to hold the election.

5. The Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur accordingly, on 25/8/2014 directed the applicants Nos.4 to 9 and non-applicant No.1 to 4 in the said proceeding to hold meeting on or before 14/9/2014 for deciding date of election and name of Election Officer. It was further directed to decide the name of Independent Election Officer in the said meeting and to inform the said Independent Election Officer about his appointment by taking his prior consent on or before 21/9/2014. The Deputy Charity Commissioner also issued direction to the Election Officer to hold election as per bye laws and submits report to the Deputy Charity Commissioner about the election on or before 31/10/2014.

6. In pursuance to the same, the meeting was held on 30/8/2014 for deciding the name of the Election Officer.

7. The respondent No.2 was served with the registered post notice which he objected on the ground that without consulting the President, the Secretary has issued notice and accordingly, he requested for cancellation of the said notice.

8. Here, it is not relevant that, what objection was raised by the respondent No.2, but whether the notice was served on the respondent No.2 or not ?

9. From the objection raised by the respondent No.2, it is evident that the notice of meeting dtd. 30/8/2014 was issued by the respondent No.2.

10. In the meeting held on 14/9/2014, the name of the Election Officer was finalized and after obtaining his consent, the election programme was issued on 29/10/2014 and accordingly, the election was held on 23/11/2014.

11. In pursuance to the said election, the change report was submitted which was objected by the respondent No.2. The Assistant Charity Commissioner vide judgment and order dtd. 4/5/2019 accepted the change report.

12. The respondent No.2 feeling aggrieved by the same filed an appeal before the Joint Charity Commissioner under Sec. 70 of the Act of 1950 which came to be allowed vide impugned judgment and order dtd. 30/12/2019, which is the subject matter of the challenge in this writ petition.

13. From the impugned judgment and order, it is evident that, the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner dtd. 4/5/2019 was reversed by the Joint Charity Commissioner on the ground that, on the date of election, interim stay granted by this Court regarding membership of the petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 5 was in force and therefore, the participation in the election vitiates the election. Further, it is held that, the President was not consulted by the Secretary for deciding election process and appointment of the Election Officer as per the direction given by the Deputy Charity Commissioner in application No.1446 of 2013.

14. On perusal of the record, it is evident that, the writ petition wherein the stay was granted to the membership of the petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 5 was subsequently dismissed. The interim stay was accordingly merged with the final order. Moreover, in the election, seven members participated and three members remained absent.

15. Thus, it is apparent that, even if, three votes are discarded, the majority was on other side.

16. In light of fact that, the said writ petition was dismissed. I am of the considered view that, holding the election is illegal for the reason that, during the period when there was stay to the membership of the petitioner N