JUDGMENT :

M.G. Giratkar, J.

1. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties.

2. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 17th July, 2018 passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati in Application No. 10 of 2004 by which the application is partly allowed. Non-applicant (appellants) Nos.1, 6, 12 and 13 are removed from the Trust permanently for committing default under Section 41-D (1)(a), (c) and (d) of Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.

3. Respondent No.1 was elected as a Treasurer in the year 2004. Thereafter, respondent No.1 found some illegalities committed by the non-applicants by misusing their powers. He also found some misappropriation of the funds and wrongfully removed/disposed of the property of the Trust. The appellant (non-applicant No.1) being the Secretary of the Trust failed to call meeting for 13 years in spite of valid election dated 06.02.2004. Being the Secretary, it was his duty to submit audit report etc. to the Charity Commissioner but he did not submit any audit report for a long period. Respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 41-D for removal of the appellants and others from the Trust namely Vasantrao Naik Shikshan Sanstha, Palasgaon Nago (Naik), District Buldana.

4. The appellants and others appeared and filed their written statements. The charge was framed by the Joint Charity Commissioner vide Exh.106. The applicant (respondent No.1) adduced his evidence. Thereafter, case was posted for the evidence of appellants but failed to adduce the evidence. After hearing submission of both sides, learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati passed the impugned judgment.

5. Heard Shri R.L. Khapre with Shri R.G. Kavimandan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, Shri A. Shelat, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Shri N.H. Joshi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent No.3.

6. Shri Khapre, learned Counsel for the appellants has pointed out the impugned judgment and submitted that nowhere in the judgment or in the evidence of respondent No.1 it shows that the respondent No.1 has committed any misappropriation of the property. The immovable property is registered in the name of Trust. The entries of the immovable property are taken in the PTR. Learned Counsel has submitted that there was no opportunity to the appellant to adduce the evidence. Application was moved to adduce the evidence, but it was rejected.

7. Shri Kavimandan, learned Counsel has further submitted that the removal of trustees as per the provisions of Section 41-D of the BPT Act is very harsh action. Therefore, the strict proof is necessary. He has pointed out the decisions in the cases of Vajubhai Patel and another .v. Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State and others, (1990) 2 BCR 702 ; Shri Mukund Waman Thatte .v. Shri Sudhir Parshuram Chitale and others, (2012) 3 AllMR 604; and Shri Dhanraj Natthuji Kale and others .v. Shri Govindrao Laxmanrao Choudhary and others, (2012) 7 AllMR 294.

8. Shri Khapre, learned Counsel has submitted that the proceedings under Section 41-D of BPT Act is a quasi criminal in nature and, therefore, strict proof is necessary. He has submitted that in view of the cited judgments, strict proof is required to prove the charges as contemplated under Section 41-D of the BPT Act. At last, he has submitted that the charges are not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, impugned judgment is liable to be quashed and set aside.

9. Shri Shelat, learned Counsel for the respondents has pointed out the judgment of Assistant Charity Commissioner and submitted that in those proceedings, the respondent No.1 objected for the registration of property in PTR. Therefore, intention of respondent No.1 is to be seen. Being the Secretary, it was his duty to include immovable property in the PTR. Till filing of application by respondent No.1, the immovable property was not included in th