IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.
Suresh Kumar Maftlal Vyas – Petitioner
Versus
The Additional Secretary Ministry Of Industry And Mines & 4 Others – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 18968 of 2016
Decided On : 19-04-2022
Gujarat Public Trust Act, 1950 – Sections 37, 38 – Seeking quashing and setting aside of order – Basis on which aforementioned prayers have been prayed for, is alleged maladministration by respondent no.3 – Trust and more particularly, regarding allotment Yearly Food Contract to M/s Touchstone Foundation, without inviting tenders as well as advance payment of Rs.1.5 crore to it – Held, Since this Court, has not entertained the first prayer of petitioner, there arises no question of allowing the second prayer of quashing and setting aside order of learned Charity Commissioner passed in Judicial Misc. Application – One more ground is available for dismissing writ petition and that would be non-joinder of necessary party – Edifice on which petition has been filed is work awarded in favour of foundation – Allegations are made against respondents, so also foundation; however, foundation has not been joined as a party respondent and therefore, petition is dismissed on ground of non-joinder of necessary party, as well – Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The captioned writ petition, prays for the prayers, namely, (i) to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction against the respondent – State authorities to submit the fact-finding report/inquiry report against the culprits, and (ii) writ of certiorari or appropriate writ, order or direction, seeking quashing and setting aside of the order dated 23.5.2016 passed by the respondent no.5, i.e. the Charity Commissioner in Judicial Misc. Application No.65 of 2015.
2. The basis on which the aforementioned prayers have been prayed for, is alleged maladministration by the respondent no.3 – Trust and more particularly, regarding allotment of Ambika Bhojnalaya Yearly Food Contract to M/s Touchstone Foundation, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the foundation’) without inviting tenders as well as the advance payment of Rs.1.5 crore to it.
3. As can be culled out from the averments made in the petition memo, the petitioner’s grievance is to take steps against the Deputy Collector & Administrator of Shree Arasuri Ambaji Mata Devsthan Trust (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trust’) owing to maladministration of the public fund. According to the petitioner, despite there being the Rules, Regulations and Circulars governing the grant of contract, the Administrator of the Trust has awarded the contract of Rs.18 crore to the foundation, without inviting tenders as well as usage of other materials, namely, food, water etc. by the foundation and advance payment despite the fact that it is the obligation of the contractor to procure such items. Allegation is made that the necessary amendment was incorporated in collusion with the contractor by the Administrator. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the resolution dated 23.1.2014 of the State Government, there is no such provision of offering advance payment; however, ignoring such instructions, the foundation has been extended the benefit. The grievance is also to the effect that the contract dated 4.2.2014 was executed by the Collector with the foundation, and as per clause no.3, it was agreed that the Trust will give advance payment of Rs.1.5 crore. Such condition, has been incorporated by the Administrator in the office note dated 7.2.2014 by effecting amendment; whereas, the contract was already executed on 4.2.2014. It is therefore, the case of the petitioner that the Trust has been subjected to financial loss by the Administrator in collusion with the foundation. Not only that, in disregard of the orders issued by the Industries & Mines Department, payment of huge amount has been made to the foundation. The grievance is also to the effect that the contract is dated 4.2.2014 when, Mr J.G. Hingrajiya, was the Collector, Banaskantha; however, instead of Mr Hingrajiya, Mr M.S. Patel, has signed the contract, who has taken charge as Collector on 20.2.2014.
3.1 The petitioner had made various applications to the Secretary, Gujarat Vigilance Commission and to the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Banaskantha with a request to look into the same and get the necessary inquiry done. In the application before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, it has been requested to take disciplinary proceedings against Shri G.P. Brahmbhatt and also to make inquiry by the Police Inspector under the provisions of Sections 37 and 38 of the Gujarat Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1950’) with a further request to pass necessary orders.
4. The affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.3, Mr R.K. Patel, Incharge Administrator of the Trust, inter alia, stating that the Trust manages the affairs of the temple of Shree Arasuri Ambaji Mata. The Trust also carries out the functions of distribution of packed prasad and affairs of the Bhojanalaya, known as ‘Ambika Bhojanalaya’. The preparation and distribution of prasad and running of Bhojanalaya, is outsourced and for which, the Trust enters into contract with contractors and experts in the
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a high degree of proof for drastic actions such as removal of trustees under Section 41-D of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of the law. The court emphasized that an orde....
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 ....
Section 2(13) of the Trusts Act when the petitioner Society is registered under the Societies Registration Act and the same is registered for charitable purposes, it is deemed to be a charitable Trus....
Trustees must comply with legal requirements for property management; failure to do so constitutes serious misconduct warranting removal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of the settlement of the scheme for the better administration of the trust under Section 50a(1) of the Trusts act, 1950, and the affi....
Government procurement processes must ensure fairness and adherence to legal norms, avoiding arbitrary exclusions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for a transparent process in disposing of Trust property and the Charity Commissioner's role in verifying the genuine need for sellin....
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.