Advocates:
['ADHE RATAN L', 'COPY SERVED ON GP', '', 'R/ TO SERVED', 'HON ASHWIN V', 'HON ASHWIN V', 'DESHMUKH AJINKYA P', 'As per court order dt', 'Notice issued to R No is served']

(1)

WP-796_ 2018.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 796 OF 2018

1.

Ashok Eknathrao Vikhe Patil

Age : adult, occ : business

R/o Loni, Taluka Rahata,

District Ahmednagar.

2.

Balasaheb Kerunath Vikhe Patil

Age : adult, occ : business/agri.,

R/o Loni, Taluka Rahata,

Dist Ahmednagar

Petitioners

Versus

1.

Joint Charity Commissioner

Pune.

2.

Radhakrishna Vikhe Patil

Age : adult, business

R/o Loni, Taluka Rahata,

District Ahmednagar

3.

Bhagwantrao @ Abasaheb Kharde

Patil

Age : adult, occ : business

R/o Loni, Taluka Rahata,

District Ahmednagar

4.

Annasaheb Mhaske Patil

Age : adult, occ : business

R/o Loni, Taluka Rahata,

District Ahmednagar

5.

Pravara Sahakari Bank

Loni, Taluka Rahata,

District Ahmednagar

6.

State of Maharashtra.

Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4372 OF 2018

Ashok Eknathrao Vikhe Patil & anr

Applicant

Versus

Joint Charity Commissioner & others

Respondents

(2)

WP-796_ 2018.odt

***

Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Senior Counsel, i/b

Mr. R.L. Adhe, Advocate for the petitioners/applicants.

Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for the State.

Mr. V.D. Hon, Senior Counsel i/b

Mr. A.V. Hon, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 4.

Mr. Ajinky Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No. 5.

***

CORAM

:

N.J. JAMADAR, J.

Judgment reserved on

:

23^rd March 2021.

Judgment pronounced on

:

4^th May 2021.

JUDGMENT :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the

consent of the Counsels for the parties, heard finally at the stage

of admission.

2.

The challenge to this petition is to an order dated

20^th November 2017 passed by the learned Joint Charity

Commissioner, Pune on applications (Exhibits 26 and 29)

preferred by respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, whereby those

applications were allowed holding that petitioner No. 2 herein is

not a person having interest in the Trust Pravara Rural Education

Society, and, consequently, the application preferred by the

petitioners under Section 41E of the Maharashtra Public Trusts

Act, 1950 (the Act 1950) was not maintainable.

3.

The petition arises in the backdrop of the following

facts :

(3)

WP-796_ 2018.odt

a)

Pravara Rural Education Society (the trust ) is a

Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860,

and a public charitable Trust registered under the Act 1950,

bearing registration No. P.T.R. No. F/52/Ahmednagar. The main

object of the Trust is to impart education for human

development. The Trust runs numerous educational institutes at

different levels. The Trust was formed and mentored by Late

Padmvibhushan Dr. Eknathrao Vikhe Patil.

b)

Applicant No. 1 Ashok claims to be a trustee and

Executive Chairman of the Trust. Applicant No. 2 Balasaheb

claims to be a beneficiary thereof. The applicants assert that

after the demise of Dr. Eknathrao Vikhe Patil, on 30^th December

2017, respondent Nos.1 to 3 have unlawfully usurped the office

of Chairman and Trustees of the said Trust. The respondents are

guilty of various acts of omission and commission which

endanger the Trust, its property and beneficiaries. Respondent

No. 1 has availed loan to the tune of Rupees Four Crores against

fixed deposit receipt of the Trust from respondent No. 4 bank for

payment of salaries to the employees, when the said action was

not warranted. Thus, alleging that the properties of the Trust

are in danger of being wasted, damaged or improperly alienated

by respondent Nos.1 to 3, the applicants preferred an

application, being Application No. 13/2017, under Section 41E of

the Act 1950 for various injunctive reliefs.

(4)

WP-796_ 2018.odt

c)

The respondents appeared in response to the notice.

Respondent No. 1 preferred an application (Exhibit 26)

questioning the tenability of the application under Section 41E of

the Act 1950 on the ground that an application under Section

41E can be filed by two persons having interest in the Trust. But

applicant No. 2 Balasaheb is not the person having interest in