Point of Law: 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 proper elected body as required under the Trust-Deed, a proper administration of the Trust cannot be ensured. It is further observed that the Administration of the Trust would include various aspects, which would fall under the provisions of the Act and in absence of a properly constituted administrative body, the affairs of the Trust can hardly be conducted in furtherance of its objects. Thereafter, it is held that the direction to hold election of the trustee in consonance with the terms of the Trust-Deed would clearly fall within the ambit of Sec. 41A of the Act.

ORDER :

1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioners have prayed for the following relief/s:

“A. Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the order passed by the Respondent no.1 dated 14.12.2020 in application below Exh.5 in Adjudication Misc. Application No.41A/13/2020.

B. Be pleased to issue a writ of prohibition or a writ in the nature of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to hold and declare that the Respondent no.1 has no power, competence or authority to hear the application submitted before him recorded in Adjudication Misc. Application No.41A/13/2020 dated 14.12.2020 in application below Exh.5.

C. Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to stay the impugned order passed by the Respondent no.1 dated 14.12.2020 in application below Exh.5 in Adjudication Misc. Application No.41A/13/2020.

D. Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to restrain the Respondent no.1 from further hearing of the Adjudication Misc. Application No.41A/13/2020.”

2. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Percy Kavina assisted by learned advocate Mr. Tarak Damani for the petitioners, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Navin Pahwa for the respondent No.2 and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi for the respondent No.3.

3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Percy Kavina appearing for the petitioners submitted that the District Judge, Bhavnagar in Civil Suit No.1 of 1975 framed the scheme for the purpose of administration and management of Gopinathji Dev Mandir Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the trust' for short). As per the provisions contained in the Scheme, the Board of Trustees is consisted of 7 trustees. It is submitted that last general election of the Board of Trustees was held as per the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that serious disputes are pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Rajkot about election of Board of Trustees. At this stage, it is contended that as per the scheme, the Chairman of the Trust is entitled to call the meeting of Board of Trustees. The Chairman, vide his notice dated 11.11.2020, called the meeting of the Board of Trustees of the trust. The said meeting was called on 22.11.2020. It is submitted that the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 did not remain present in the said meeting. Therefore, as per Clause 24b of the Scheme, the meeting was adjourned in absence of quorum. It is submitted that in the meeting, petitioners have decided to convene the meeting after two weeks i.e. on 06.12.2020.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that on 06.12.2020, meeting was held in which once again the present respondent Nos. 2 to 5 did not remain present. In fact, the private respondents were informed vide notice dated 22.11.2020 about the meeting of 06.12.2020. The petitioners herein remained present in the said meting and as per the agenda, the meeting was conducted and in the said meeting one of the petitioners was elected as Chairman of the meeting. By Resolution No.4, it was decided to hold and resolve that Shastri Swami Hari Jivandasji i.e. respondent No.2 herein was not holding the qualification to continue as the Trustee of the Board of Trustees and therefore he was removed from the office of the trustees of the Board of Trustees of the temple. Petitioner No.1 was also elected as the Chairman of the Trust and that was done by passing resolution No.5. Another resolution No.6 was also passed, whereby the decision was taken to change the names of the trustees for transacting the business of the trust with the bank. Thereafter, resolution No.8 was passed, wherein the post which was fallen vacant on account of removal of respondent No.2, Swami Bhakti Prasadji has been co-opted as trustee for the remaining term of the Board