SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 3426

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE MUKULIKA SHRIKANT JAWALKAR
DR. AVINASH S/O HERABBA DEKATE AND ANOTHER – Appellant
Versus
THE JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER NAGPUR AND OTHERS – Respondent
FA/100/2019



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.100/2019

1. Dr. Avinash s/o Herabba Dekate, Aged about 67 years, Occu: Retired, R/o. Kurkheda, Tq. Kurkheda, Distt. Gadchiroli.

2. Venimadhav R. Akolkar, Aged about 71 years, occ: Retired R/o. 60, Subhash Nagar, Near Shankar Nagar Post Office, Nagpur ... APPELLANTS ...VERSUS…

1. The Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, Distt. Nagpur.

2. Krishna s/o. Janardhan Kaleshwar Aged about 78 years, Occu:

Retired employee, R/o. Sirsi, Tq.

Umrer, Distt. Nagpur.

3. Arun Anandrao Maundekar, Aged about 55 years, Occu:

Business, R/o. Golibar Chowk, Nagpur.

4. Nagorao Marotrao Parate aged about 69 years, Occu:

Amended as per Business, R/o. Flat No.T/2, Court’s order dt.

16.04.2019 Anant Apartment, 68, Khare Town, Dharampeth, Nagpur : 440010.

5. Pandurang Upasrao Sute, Aged about 70 years, Occu:

Retired, R/o. Indian Airline Colony, Bldg. No.2, 1st floor, Opp. Old Air lines gate, Kalina, Santacruz, Mumbai.

... RESPONDENT S ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shri Amol B. Patil, Advocate for the appellants Shri S.D. Abhyankar, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J .

DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 13/07/2022 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 26/07/2022 JUDGMENT Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur in Application No.17/2006 under Section 41–D dated 15/12/2018. The appellant No. 1 is the president of Lokseva Shikshan Sanstha, Sirsi. It is registered Public Trust bearing registration No. F-683(N). The said Trust runs Pramilatai Dekate Girls Hostel and Vasantrao Naik Krushi Vidyalaya. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 claiming members of the trust, filed an application under Section 41-D of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act [for the brevity MPT Act], which was registered as Application No.17/2006. The appellant along with respondent Nos.4 and 5 were respondents while one Madhukar Begde, Rajesh Kune and D.B. Bhandakkar died during the pendency of the proceeding but no steps were taken by the applicants.

3. The respondent No.1, Joint Charity Commissioner conducted enquiry and passed the impugned order on 15/12/2018, whereby removed the appellants from trusteeship. The said order mainly challenged on the ground that the order is per se illegal as the enquiry was proceeded against three persons who were already dead and proceedings continued against them. Resultantly, one Madhukar Begde who is already dead is removed by that order. The order is also contrary to the provisions of law as it does not mention the tenure of removal. The Joint Charity Commissioner removed appellant No.1 for the disobedience of the directions in Application No.15/2004 dated 08/08/2004 and 10/08/2004. In fact, there is no disobedience of the orders as the said order communicated in the year 2006. Another ground for removal of appellants for non filing of audit reports, however, firstly it is the responsibility of the Secretary for which President cannot be removed, secondly due to non-cooperation by the headmistress, the audit report could not be prepared. For that reason there was enquiry conducted against Headmistress and she was removed from the post

4. The appellants submitted that due enquiry was conducted against headmistress. One of the ground for enquiry is non-cooperation for preparing an audited account. Later on she was terminated and entire audit was done and submitted to the Charity Commissioner. As such, there is no intentional delay or negligence on the part of appellants. One of the charge against appellant for removal is that the appellant No.1 obtained donation from students forcefully and Deputy Director imposed a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is submission of the appellants tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top