Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 22181

BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Arun R. Pedneker, J
Veerbadra s/o. Sidramappa Birajdar, Chandrashekhar s/o. Manohar Kshirsagar, Malikarjun s/o. Virupakashyya Shankad, Deepak s/o. Bankatlalji Chandak, Raosaheb s/o. Narsingh Mule – Appellant
Versus
Shri B.D.Kulkarni, Vishwanath Shankarappa Walande, Basvaraj Vaijnathappa Gastgar, Ramniwas Balkishan Darak, Premchand Ranglal Biyani, Ramesh Dadarao Bagdure, Kishanrao Veerappa Bhingole / Reddy, Shivajirao Manikrao Jadhav, Madolayaa Sangaya Mathpati, Rajesh Vishwanath Walande, Dagdu Baliram Girbane, Matin Nabisab Alandkar, Shardopasak Shikshan Sanstha – Respondent
Contempt Petition No.213 of 2022 | First Appeal No.177 of 2019

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.B.Gastgar
For the Respondents: Mr.B.V.Virdhe, Mr.Ajay Deshpande

Inadvertent judicial errors do not constitute contempt, particularly if the merits of the case are addressed.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Public Trusts Act - Sections 41D and 41E - Allegation of contempt brought against a Judicial Officer for failing to adhere to a previous court order regarding locus standi. The court determined that an inadvertent mistake had occurred in the earlier ruling and the proceedings should not be dismissed solely based on this error. (Paras 3, 14)

(B) Contempt of Court - Definition and application - The court clarified that not every mistake by a judicial officer constitutes contempt; mere inadvertence does not attract contempt, especially when merits are considered. (Paras 9, 14)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners asserted that a charity trust was mismanaged, and their applications for inquiry were wrongly dismissed based on alleged lack of locus standi, contrary to a prior ruling.

Findings of Court:
The Court accepted the respondent's apology, noting no wilful disregard of the prior order, thus no grounds for contempt were established.

Issues: The core issue was whether the respondent's actions amounted to contempt of court following an erroneous finding of locus standi.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that an inadvertent error in a decision does not equate to contempt, especially where the evidence was considered and adjudicated on merit.

Result: Contempt Petition disposed of.

ORDER :

1] By the present Contempt Petition, the petitioners allege that Judicial Officer Mr.B.D.Kulkarni, District Judge, presently posted as Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur Region, Latur has committed contempt of the order passed by this Court dated 26.02.2019 in First Appeal Nos.177/2019 & 178/2019.

2] The primary contention of the petitioners is that the respondent no. 16 Shardopasak Shikshan Sanstha is a registered Public Trust bearing PTR No.F-144/Latur. The said trust is registered in the year 1972 under the relevant provisions of law. The said trust is running the educational units and are receiving 100% grant in aid from the State Government as well as from the University Grants Commission. It is the contention of the petitioners that the trust is mismanaged by the respondent trustees and they have committed irregularities and misappropriated huge funds of the said trust. The petitioner nos.1 and 2 have filed application dated 06.11.2017 under Section 41D and 41E of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and thereby prayed that the respondent trustees be removed permanently from the trustee-ship and even from their membership and they be held as disqualified permanently from becoming the members or the office bearers of the said trust. The respondent nos. 5, 8 to 16 filed their say and resisted the application more particularly on the ground of maintainability and locus standi of the petitioners for filing the said application. After hearing the parties, the Joint Charity Commissioner rejected the application filed by the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have no locus standi to file enquiry application under Section 41D of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act as they are not the person having interest in the trust.

3] The petitioners filed First Appeal before this Court and this Court after hearing the parties set aside the orders challenged therein and held that the petitioners have every locus standi to file the proceeding under Section 41D and 41E of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act against the respondents trustees and it was directed by this Court that the Joint Charity Commissioner shall permit the appellants in both the appeals to participate in the suo motu inquiry initiated against the respondents under Section 41D and 41E of the Act.

4] After restoration of the application, the Joint Charity Commissioner framed the charges after hearing the parties under Section 41D (1) (a) (b) (c) (d) and (e) and decided the same, by the judgment and order dated 21.12.2020. The Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur i.e. respondent no. 4 Shri B.D.Kulkarni heard the parties in Application No.87/2017 and Application No.186/2018 on 18.08.2021 and reserved the matters for order. After near about 3 months period, passed common judgment and order dated 03.11.2021 and thereby dismissed both the applications and discharged the respondent trustees from the said proceedings.

5] It is the case of the petitioners that this Court has already held in the earlier proceedings that the petitioners have locus standi to maintain both the applications. However, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has held that the petitioner has no locus standi, and therefore, has committed contempt of the order of this Court.

6] The petitioners have challenge the said judgment in this Court by filing First Appeal so also they have filed contempt petition in which it is alleged that the Joint Charity Commissioner has held that the petitioners do not have locus standi to file the application, therefore, the Joint Charity Commissioner has acted contrary to the order passed by this Court and thus contempt its committed.

7] In the Contempt Petition, this Court on 19th April, 2022 has passed the following order :

1. Heard Mr S.B.Gastgar, learned Advocate for petitioners for some time.

2. Having regard to the grounds pleaded in the petition for motion of contempt, it is necessary to have hearing in detail to find out whether case for initiating contempt is made out.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document