Writ petitions must demonstrate public law elements and not be purely personal; alternative statutory remedies must be exhausted first.

ORDER :

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

The writ petition has been filed for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to administer and manage the affairs of the respondent Nos.6-9 and to reinstate the former Trustees/founding Directors of the said respondents to take appropriate action against the respondent No.11 in failing to conduct inspection and Audit of the Directors of the respondent Nos.7 and 9 under the Companies Act, 1956.

2. The petitioners claim to be erstwhile employees of the respondent Nos.6 – 9 which are public trust/charities. All the three petitioners claim to have been terminated from service without enquiry. The respondent No.6 is a Public Trust registered under The Bombay Trusts Act, 1950. The respondent No.7 is a Public Charity (Non-profit) registered under section 25 of The Companies Act, 1956 operating in the name and style of “Operation Mobilisation India” which was later changed to “Operation Mercy India Foundation”. The respondent No.8 is also a Public Charity registered under the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 in the name and style of “Good Shepherd Community Society”. The respondent No.9 is a Public Charity registered under section 25 of The Companies Act, 1956 in the name and style of “O.M. Books Foundation” and the respondent No.10 is an International Charity registered under The Companies Act, 1956, of England and Wales with operations in over 110 countries including in India.

3. The petitioners allege that the petitioners were unceremoniously terminated from service due to the whistle- blowing activities of the petitioner No.1. The petitioners allege that the respondent No.1, a Director of the respondent charities, is mismanaging the affairs of the Trust and misappropriating funds brought in by the donors. The petitioners hence pray for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to act as an Administrator for managing the affairs of the respondent Nos.6-9.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are admitted and established violations of the respondent Trusts and Public Charities carried out at the behest of its Trustees and Directors/private respondents in the writ petition. Counsel submits that the private respondents have abused their position and caused financial misappropriation and irregularities in the management of the Public Trusts. Counsel submits that the respondent Nos.1 to 5 are not qualified to hold positions as Trustees or Directors of the respondent Nos.6-9. Counsel argues in favour of the maintainability of the writ petition despite an alternative remedy being available under The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1- 5, 7 and 9 argues against the maintainability of the writ petition as being filed against the respondent Nos.1-5 who are private individuals and are not discharging any public functions. Counsel submits that the writ petition reeks of personal animosity and is also barred by the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata. Counsel submits that the writ petition is filed beyond the maximum period of limitation provided under The Companies Act, 2013 and the writ petition is also not maintainable against foreign non-juristic entities.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.6 and 8 reiterates the argument on the non-maintainability of the writ petition also in light of the alternative remedy under The Bombay Trusts Act, 1950. Counsel submits that the respondent No.8, which is registered under The Andhra Pradesh Co-op