Point of Law:
Proposition of law, on the issue of Section 41(A) of the Act. But, the circumstances here, in the present case, are although different, as a result of which, though there is a power under Section 41(A) of the Act with the Charity Commissioner has in peculiar background, desisted himself from exercising discretion, which has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge. We are of the considered opinion that no interference be made and the said decision is not possible to be applied by us in the present different background and fact to dislodge the conclusion. Hence, no case is made by the appellants - original petitioners.

ORDER :

ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed by appellants – original petitioners, challenging the legality and validity of an order dated 13.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.10671 of 2018.

2. The background of facts giving rise to the present Letters Patent Appeal are that the appellants – original petitioners have deposited an amount of Rs.250/- to Rs. 500/- to become members of respondent No.1 – Trust. The said deposit has the effect of becoming life members of the respondent - Trust. The appellants alongwith several other beneficiaries have deposited the said amount of Rs.250/- in the account of respondent No.1 – Trust at the State Bank of India, Godhra and requested respondent No.2 to issue a receipt for the same. However, the same has not been accepted, which has given rise to filing of an application before the learned Charity Commissioner under Section 41(A) of the Gujarat Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The said application came up for consideration before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Vadodara which was registered as Judicial Misc. Application No. 41 of 2016. However, vide order dated 30.01.2018, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has not accepted the said application. As a result of this, the appellants – original petitioners were constrained to approach this Court by way of writ petition for seeking reliefs in the following form:

“(21) (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 30.01.2018 passed by learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Vadodara Divisions, Vadodara, in Misc. Civil Application No.41 of 2016 (at Annexure- hereto) and further be pleased to grant prayers as prayed for by the petitioners herein in application being Misc. Civil Application No.41 of 2016;

(B) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may please to direct the respondent nos. 2 – 5 herein to permit the petitioners herein to participate in the meetings of the respondent no.1-Trust;

(C) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case;”

3. The said writ petition came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge, who after hearing all the respective parties to the proceedings, was pleased to dismiss the same vide order dated 13.09.2019. It is this order of dismissal of the writ petition which is made the subject matter of present Letters Patent Appeal.

4. We have heard Ms. Dimple A. Thaker, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants – original petitioners, and Shri M. I. Merchant, learned counsel for the caveators – respondent Nos.1 to 5. With the consent of learned counsels and upon their request, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

5. Ms. Dimple A. Thaker, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants – original petitioners, has vehemently contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not only unjust and arbitrary, but is not in consonance with the terms of the trust deed. It has been submitted that the trust deed is silent and invests no power of rejection to becoming life member unlike other membership. Hence, the moment the amount determined to become a life member of Rs. 250/- to Rs.500/- is paid, the person depositing automatically becomes a life member of the Trust. Therefore, non-consideration of such request, despite a deposit, is beyond the terms of the trust deed. There is no power with the General Board or Governing Body of the Trust to refuse such membership. The learned Charity Commissioner has misled the trust deed itself which ought to have been considered by the learned Single Judge.

5.1. Ms. Thaker, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants – original petit