JUDGMENT

A.S.Chandurkar, J. - In view of notice for final disposal issued earlier, the learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for hearing

3. The petitioners who are the Chairman and Treasurer respectively of a public trust by name Shri Ganesh Mandir Tekdi, Nagpur (for short, the Trust) have been removed from their posts by other members of the Managing Committee of the Trust by passing a motion of no-confidence. The public Trust is registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short, the Act of 1950). The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking a declaration that the Scheme of administration of the Trust does not contemplate passing of a "no-confidence motion" against the office bearers of the Managing Committee of the Trust. On that premise, resolution dated 05.07.2020 expressing no-confidence against the petitioners has been challenged as being bad in law.

4. A Scheme of administration of the affairs of the Trust came to be formulated and thereafter settled by this Court in First Appeal No. 182/1973. As per the aforesaid Scheme, the Managing Committee of the Trust was to comprise of eleven members who were deemed to be trustees of the Trust. These eleven members were then to elect the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Treasurer, Secretary and if necessary an Assistant Secretary. The election of the Managing Committee was to take place every five years. After the term of the Managing Committee for the period from 2014 to 2019 came to an end, a new Managing Committee came to be constituted. The first petitioner became the Chairman while the second petitioner became its Treasurer. In the meeting of the Managing Committee held on 05.07.2020 a resolution was passed expressing lack of confidence against the Chairman and the Treasurer on account of their earlier conduct. The petitioners were not present in the said meeting and were accordingly informed of the same by communication dated 06.07.2020. This has led the petitioners to approach this Court by the present writ petition for seeking the reliefs as stated hereinabove.

5. Shri C.S.Kaptan, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners at the outset submitted that when the motion of no-confidence was passed and the petitioners were required to seek legal redress, they were unable to do so by invoking any statutory remedy before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner in view of various restrictions imposed due to COVID-19 pandemic. According to him, the reliefs sought by the petitioners could not be prayed for under any of the provisions of the Act of 1950. Considering the wider issues involved which included interests of the deity and lakhs of devotees, the petitioners had approached this Court. It was his submission that under the Scheme of administration of the Trust which was settled by this Court there was no provision for moving any motion of no-confidence against any office bearer of the Managing Committee. This had been deliberately not provided for with a view to ensure smooth functioning of the Trust and to avoid any such situation that could result in affecting the administration of the Trust. In the absence of any provision for moving a motion of no-confidence, it was not permissible for the Managing Committee to remove the petitioners in such manner. By moving the motion of no-confidence, the concerned respondents had acted against the Scheme as framed by this Court. It was further submitted that an elected member of the Managing Committee could be removed only in the manner as provided for under the Scheme and in absence of any such provision in that regard the removal of the petitioners was illegal. Seeking to distinguish the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary, (2015) 8 SCC 1 it was submitted that the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision was in the cont