Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 23612

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J
Vijay Gopalkrushna Patil, Santosh Nilkantha Chintanwar, Sanjay Gopalrao Chintanwar, Gangareddy Vitthal Godhanwar, Moreshwar Hanumatrao Zilpilwar, Namdeo Suryabhan Jiddewar, Anup Dipak Patil, Rajeshwar Jalpatrao Yenmaneniwar, Vinod Vishambar Chamediya, Bhagwantrao Hanumantrao Nainwar – Appellant
Versus
The Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati Region, Amravati – Respondent
First Appeal No . 707 of 2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mrs. Radhika Bajaj
For the Respondents: Ms. Trupti Udeshi

The appellate court emphasized the need for public inquiry and notice before appointing trustees under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, ensuring all interested parties are consulted and considered.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Section 47 - Appeal arose against the order of a Joint Charity Commissioner rejecting the application for appointment of trustees due to lack of evidence regarding the appellants' membership and their fitness for the roles. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the order and remitting the matter for a fresh inquiry with public notice mandated in widely circulated newspapers. (Paras 1, 2, 20, 21)

(B) Fitness of proposed trustees - Trust management must involve fit persons; any prior criminal charges or the absence of record regarding membership raises doubts about suitability; public consultation is essential in the appointment process. (Paras 17, 18, 20)

Facts of the case:
The appellants claim membership rights over a public trust, contesting the rejection of their application for trustee appointments based on their alleged unfit status and failure to prove membership due to destroyed records. The respondent raised concerns regarding the suitability of some proposed trustees, based on criminal charges.

Findings of Court:
The court found errors in the respondent's process, particularly in not widely circulating public notices and conducting adequate inquiries to assess the fitness and interest of all parties involved, ordering a remand for a proper inquiry.

Issues: The court addressed whether the appellants were bona fide members entitled to appoint trustees and whether the rejection by the Joint Charity Commissioner was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The decision reinforced the necessity for proper inquiry procedures and public consultation in trustee appointments as per Section 47 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, highlighting that the absence of objections does not negate the need for a thorough selection process.

Result: Appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. appellants contest the rejection of trustee applications. (Para 1 , 2)
2. appellants' claims to trust membership are disputed. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. arguments centered on procedural errors in trustee appointments. (Para 9 , 10)
4. court stresses validity of public consultation and inquiries. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 18 , 19)
5. court remits the case for a proper inquiry under the act. (Para 20 , 21)

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellants feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati on an application under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 filed by the appellants.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows :

The Anand Club Pandharkawada is a public trust duly registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and also under the Societies Registration Act. The said Trust had been formed with the object of promotion and encouragement of all indoor and outdoor games, tournaments and exhibition matches.

3. As per the contention of the appellants the original record including the resolution which was passed for inducting the present proposed trustees as members of the said Trust was destroyed in rainstorm on 13.4.2013. The appellant No.1 could not prove the membership of all the appellants before the Assistant Charity Commissioner. Hence, appellants have filed applications under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act for including their names on M.P.T. register. Said application was rejected. It is further contention of the appellants that they are members of the said Trust as they were inducted by founder members. The change report was also submitted but their names are not appearing on M.P.T. register. The appellants are the persons who are carrying out the affairs of the said Trust. Now, the recorded trustees are not alive, therefore, they had filed application under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act for recording them as trustees. The respondent Joint Charity Commissioner on 13.6.2017 issued public notice inviting objections and for inviting the applications from interested persons to be appointed as trustees. The respondent Joint Charity Commissioner had also called Police report in respect of the suitability of the proposed trustees. However, in response to the public notice nobody has raised the objection. The Joint Charity Commissioner had considered the application, however observed that the evidence of the applicant does not inspires confidence. The Police report called for suitability of the applicants for their appointment as trustees shows that the proposed trustees namely Vinod Chamediya, Namdev Jiddewar and Santosh Chintawar were charged for committing offence under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Gambling Act. Similarly, the offence under Section 324 is pending against the Gangareddy Bodhankar vide Crime No.17/2017 and rejected the application. Feeling aggrieved thereby this appeal has been preferred by the appellants who claimed to be the persons interested in the Trust.

4. I have heard learned Advocate Mrs. Radhika Bajaj for the appellants as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Trupti Udeshi for the respondent.

5. I have also perused the application under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act which was moved as the change report was rejected. It is not disputed that the applications filed by the appellants to induct their names as trustees on P.T. Register under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act bearing Inquiry No.188/2013 was rejected by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Yavatmal. For this reason it is alleged that the situation of their being no trustee has arisen.

6. The change report is mainly rejected on the ground that the appellants could not prove that there shall be election every year and the life members and regular members shall have right to vote in any meeting of the general body. The appellants could not prove that they are co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document