IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)
Arun R. Pedneker, J.
Jayshri and Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
Yashwantrao Manikrao Patil and Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2660 of 2024 and Civil Application No. 4393 of 2024
Decided On : 04-10-2024
ORDER :
Arun R. Pedneker, J.
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 20.2.2024 passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Latur Region, Latur (hereinafter referred to as 'Dy.C.C.' for short) below Exh. 24 in Misc. Application No. 1138/2023 filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 13, seeking directions to conduct the elections of the Managing Committee of the trust - Rural Education Society Murud, Dist. Latur.
2. Brief facts, leading to filing of the writ petition are noted below :-
3. Appeal against the order of Dy.C.C. dated 5.12.2023 rejecting the above C.Rs. was filed and is pending before Joint Charity Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as 'Jt.C.C.' for short). Meanwhile Misc. Application No. 1038/2023 was filed by the 13 respondents/members before the Dy.C.C. praying therein to hold election to the trust in accordance with the earlier orders passed in the C.Rs. Notices were issued in Misc. Application No. 1038/2023 on 29.12.2023. Application was filed by the present petitioners under section 73-AA of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act for intervention in Misc. Application No. 1138/2023. Intervention application was allowed by Dy.C.C. vide order dated 12.2.2024 and liberty was granted to the petitioners to file their say/objections to the Misc. Application No. 1138/2023.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that the impugned order was passed on 20.2.2024 by the Dy.C.C. directing that elections of the trust be held amongst the 16 members and as such, the impugned order is challenged in the present writ petition.
5. While this Court was hearing this writ petition, very serious allegations are levelled against Dy.C.C. (respondent No. 14 - Smt. Heera Kashinath Shelke) by the petitioners as to judicial impropriety which is noted in para 1 and 2 of the order dated 8.3.2024 passed by this Court. The same is reproduced as below :-
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on 20.2.2024 the matter was listed at Sr. No. 60 for say of the petitioner. He has produced cause list of 20.2.2024 on record. 20.2.2024 was the last day of the officer, who passed the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that she had applied on 16.2.2024 to the State for reliving her from the duty as she is to join on promoted post at Nanded. On 20.2.2024 is her last day on duty and in second session she has been relieved from the job as Dy.C.C. so as to join her new posting as Dy.C.C. Nanded. The learned counsel also submits that there are various complaints filed against her."
6. In view of the fact that the personal allegations were made against the respondent No. 14/authority, she was permitted to made party respondent in the writ petition and notice was issued to her. She has filed two affidavits dated 10.4.2024 and 2.8.2024. At the outset, I would examine the allegations made against the authority, who has passed the impugned order. In para Nos. 6 to 9 of writ petition, it is stated as under :-
Union of India and Ors. v. A.N. Saxena 1992:INSC:93 : (1992) 3 SCC 124
Union of India and Ors. v. K.K. Dhawan 1993:INSC:22 : (1993) 2 SCC 56
P.C. Joshi v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2001:INSC:349 : (2001) 6 SCC 491
Ramesh Chander Singh v. High Court of Allahabad and Anr. 2007:INSC:207 : (2007) 4 SCC 247
Judicial officers must act independently; mere errors in judgment do not constitute grounds for disciplinary action unless misconduct is evident.
Judicial officers must be allowed to act independently; dissatisfaction with decisions does not constitute grounds for alleging impropriety without substantial evidence.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the procedures outlined in the Constitution of the Trust and upholding the authority of the Sanrakshan Mandal in dec....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the authority to provisionally accept the change report and decide the inquiry within a stipulated period, as per the provisions ....
It is further observed that Administration of Trust would mean administration by a body which under the Trust-Deed is required to be administered the same. It is further observed that in absence of p....
The Election Officer exceeded jurisdiction by excluding members enrolled after 16 May 1999 from the voters list; their membership validity must be determined in future proceedings.
Point of Law : Preliminary object as raised by the respondent required to be upheld inasmuch as the petitions challenging the decision of the Election Officer of the petitioner trust would not be ame....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.