Trustees must comply with legal requirements for property management; failure to do so constitutes serious misconduct warranting removal.

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.)

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order passed by Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur in Application No.214 of 2016, dated 27.02.2024. It was an application under Section 41-D of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 (for short, the "MPT Act"). The parties are referred to their original status as per Application.

2. The brief facts of the application are as follows :

(a) The applicants and respondents are the Members of Public Trust viz. 'Gramin Vikas Sanstha, Hingangh, District Wardha' having P.T.R. No. F-72 (Wardha) (for short, the "Trust"). It is alleged that though, there was no permission of the Trust authority under Section 36 (1)(a) of the MPT Act, they have changed the immovable properties of Trust by constructing commercial shops committing breach of the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner (for short the "JCC") dated 25.06.2003, who rejected an application for permission for development of the Khasra No.167 and 168 situated at Wardha, which belongs to Trust. Said acts of the respondents were malfeasance and misfeasance misusing their power and property of the said Trust.

(b) The applicants further contended that an Application No.1/1990 was filed against the respondents for their removal/dismissal of trusteeship and during pendency of inquiry, appointment of body of fit persons under Section 41-D of the MPT Act. The Authority allowed the said application on 11.03.2004. The respondents were removed from the trusteeship of the said Trust and appointed Body of 'Fit Persons'. It was challenged by Writ Petition No.1768 of 2004. The said writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter, they challenged that judgment of writ petition by filing L.P.A. No.19 of 2004, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was also dismissed.

(c) The Trust authority appointed five members Committee for looking after the affairs of the Trust. Thereafter, respondents conducted the election of Trust. They filed change report before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Wardha that they won the election. The said change report was rejected. Said order was challenged by filing an appeal, it was allowed. The respondents took charge of the administration of the Trust. They were not administering Trust properly. They are not filing audit reports and budgets to the office of the Public Trust, Wardha with an intention to misappropriate the funds of the said Trust.

(d) The applicant No. 4 was appointed as a 'fit person' by the Trust authority, who filed an application bearing No.32/2002 for granting permission to develop the commercial complex in the property of the Trust bearing Khasara No.167 and 168 under Section 36 (1)(a) of the MPT Act. The respondents 1 and 4 filed objection to it and took stand that the said land was donated for the purpose of school's building, play ground and for welfare of the students and there is no need to develop the said properties of Trust by building commercial complex. Therefore, permission was refused by the Trust authority. The respondents were having knowledge about the refusal of the permission from the Trust Authority. However, they illegally constructed 20 shops in the said property, which are leased out without permission. The rent is misappropriated and only formal entries have been shown in the credit of the Trust. The respondents are not managing the said Trust properly. They have failed to administer the affairs of Trust honestly. It is lastly prayed to dismiss their trusteeships of the said Trust.

3. On the basis of above allegations, Article of Charge was served and charge was framed against the respondents as follows :

"You Non-applicant No.1 to 10 severally and jointly disobeyed the lawful order passed by the then Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur on 25.06.2003 in Application No. 32/2002 under Section 36 (1) (a) (c) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 by constructing shops blocks on the trust property in spite of the prohibition and thereby, committed default as cont