SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AURANGABAD BENCH
ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
Sow. Jayshri W/o Deepak Patil – Petitioner
Versus
Yashwantrao Manikrao Patil – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2660 of 2024, Civil Application No. 4393 of 2024
Decided On : 04-10-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: P.M. Nagargoje
For the Respondents: S.S. Dande, D.J. Chaudhari M.D. Shinde, V.D. Salunke, R.N. Dhorde, S.S. Dudhane

Judicial officers must be allowed to act independently; dissatisfaction with decisions does not constitute grounds for alleging impropriety without substantial evidence.

Headnote:(A) Bombay Public Trusts Act - Section 73-AA - Writ petition challenging the order of the Deputy Charity Commissioner directing elections for the Managing Committee of the Rural Education Society Murud - Allegations of judicial impropriety against the Deputy Charity Commissioner were found to be unsubstantiated. The petitioners failed to file their objections in a timely manner, leading to the dismissal of their writ petition. (Paras 1, 4, 19, 21)

(B) Judicial Conduct - Allegations of impropriety against a judicial officer must be substantiated with clear evidence of misconduct or recklessness. Mere dissatisfaction with a judicial decision does not warrant disciplinary action. (Paras 20, 21)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the Dy. C.C.'s order directing elections for the trust, alleging that the order was passed in haste on the officer's last day in office without proper procedure. (Paras 1, 4)

Findings of Court:
The Dy. C.C. acted within her rights, and the petitioners' failure to argue their case led to the dismissal of the writ petition. (Paras 19, 21)

Issues: Whether the Dy. C.C. acted with judicial impropriety and whether the petitioners were denied a fair opportunity to present their case. (Paras 5, 19)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Dy. C.C. provided ample opportunity for the petitioners to present their case, and the allegations of impropriety were unfounded. The petitioners' failure to act timely was a significant factor in the court's decision. (Paras 19, 21)

Result: Writ Petition is dismissed.

ORDER :

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, District Latur.

2. Brief facts, leading to filing of the writ petition are noted below:

    Rural Education Society Murud, Taluka and District Latur is an educational trust, having its registration PTR No. F-7 (Latur) under Bombay Public Trusts Act as well as Societies Registration Act. Change Report (hereinafter referred to as ‘C.R.’ for short) No. 603/2016 was accepted for the period from 2016 to 2021 on 31.1.2017. During same period some vacancies arose for members, which were filled in by filing C.Rs. from time to time. Change Report Nos. 118/2021 and 200/2021 were filed before the Dy. C.C. for election to the term of 2021 to 2026. Both the C.Rs. were rejected by Dy. C.C. Latur vide orders dated 5.12.2023.

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:

    “1. Since there are personal allegations against the officer, who has passed the impugned order, leave to add that officer as party-respondent.

    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:

    “6........Naturally, after adding of present petitioners as party respondents in the proceedings, it was necessary on the part of respondents to add them as party respondents in Misc. Application No. 1138/2023 as per the procedure and amended memo ought to have bee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top