Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Amit Borkar, J
Nana Rambhau Tayde – Appellant
Versus
Pundlik Hiraman Ingole – Respondent
Writ Petition No.3829 of 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.S. Patil
For the Respondents: R.M. Mardikar
Public trust management requires lawful adjudication of trustee misconduct, prohibiting settlements without inquiry.
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Public Trusts Act - Section 41D - Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Petitioners challenge Lok-Adalat's consent award related to public trust management - Petitioners argue that misconduct findings cannot be compromised - Court requires adjudication on merits by Charity Commissioner, emphasizing lawful procedure over compromise. (Paras 3, 10, 11)
(B) Jurisdiction of Lok-Adalat - Cannot adjudicate on public trust findings without inquiry - Binding procedures must be followed to determine trustee misconduct. (Paras 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenge a settlement that dismissed a trustee under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, arguing it contravenes statutory requirements for inquiry and a public trust’s management.
Findings of Court:
Adjudication must occur on merits. The Lok-Adalat's award is quashed and the case is remanded to the original jurisdiction for proper hearing.
Issues: Whether Lok-Adalat can determine public trust misconduct without a formal inquiry; the validity of the consent award given the nature of violations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that regulatory frameworks demand procedural adherence, especially regarding disciplinary matters in public trusts, thus quashing the Lok-Adalat's order to preserve the due process.
Result: Order of Lok-Adalat quashed and remanded.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to lok-adalat's consent award (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. position of parties regarding consent award (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. authority of lok-adalat and inquiry requirements (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. mandatory inquiry for trustee misconduct (Para 10) |
| 5. final order and remand for proper adjudication (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
ORAL J UDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitu-tion of India, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 08.04.2017 passed in Civil M.J.C. No.86 of 2012 passed by the learned Member of Panel of Lok-Adalat passing the award on the basis of consent of parties.
3. The relevant facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:
Vidarbha Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Malegaon, District Washim is registered as a trust under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act (for short, "the said Act"). Respondent no.1 was Secretary of the said Trust and headmaster of the school and was dismissed from his post by exercising power under Section 41D of the said Act. Aggrieved thereby, respondent no.1 preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge. During the pendency of the said appeal, respondent no.1 entered into a settlement with some of the trustees of the trust. The said settlement was recorded before the Lok-Adalat under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. The petitioners who are trustees of the said trust have challenged the order of award by consent.
4. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has relied upon the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajabhau Damodar Raikar Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner, Pune ,
5. The learned Advocate for respondent no.1 supported the award, stating that the award passed by consent of the parties by Lok-Adalat under the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act had all powers to pass an award by consent of the parties.
6. Rival submissions fall for consideration in this petition.
7. Section 41D of the said Act empowers the Charity Commissioner, either suo motu or on an application by trustee or person interested, to suspend, remove or dismiss any trustee of public trust if contingencies, as stated in sub-sections of the said Section, are made out. Sub-section 2(a) of the said section requires prima facie satisfaction about sufficient material against the trustee. The said section requires Charity Commissioner to issue a notice and hold an enquiry.
8. Sub-section (5) of Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act provides that where no award is made by the Lok- Adalat on the ground, no compromise or settlement could be reached between the parties.
9. The Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Rajabhau (supra) in paragraph 15, held as under:
“15. On plain reading of the said Act of 1987, we find that, the Lok Adalat has no power to make an adjudication by following the procedure which is required to be followed in case of trial of suits. Considering the peculiar scheme 22 of the said Act of 1950, a change report cannot be allowed even by consent without holding an inquiry and without recording reasons.”
10. In my opinion, while exercising power under the said section, the Charity Commissioner was required to hold an enquiry and adjudicate upon disqualification of a trustee recording satisfaction about the fulfilment of sub-section (a) to (f). If this is so, such adjudication having the effect of removal of trustee on the ground of misconduct could not have been permitted to be settled before Lok-Adalat by consent of some of the trustees. As the issue is related to the management of the public trust, it is necessary for the finding of disqualificat
