Quashed

Raosaheb Namdev Patil v. Vjayasinha Krishnarao Deshmukh and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Dec 2007WP/5489/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order by the Assistant Charity Commissioner that appointed specific persons to manage a trust and school. The Court held that under Section 41(a) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, the Commissioner lacks power to appoint a managing committee and can only issue directions for proper administration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order appointing persons to manage the trust and school was quashed and set aside.

Raosaheb Namdev Patil Vs Vjayasinha Krishnarao… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5489 OF 2007

¶5

Shri Raosaheb Namdeo Patil
Versus
Shri Vijayasinha krishnarao
Deshmukh and ors.

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

....Respondents

¶8

Mr.K.S.Bapat for the petitioners.
Sandeep Patil for respondent no.1.
Mr.V.N.Gangal i/by. Ashok T.Gode for respondent
nos.6,7,10 and 11.

¶9

CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶10

14th December, 2007.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1.This Writ Petition challenges an Order dated
passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner on
7.7.2007 in which the following directions have been
issued by him.

¶13

(1)In exercise of the power vested in me
under Govt.Notification under Law and Judicial
Dept.No.12674/P/ dt.10/6/75 MPGPT/IVP/
dt.19/6/75 page 457, I Shri. M.K.Dongre,
Asstt.Charity Commissioner, Sangli Region,
Sangli hereby issue directions to manage the
affairs of the Trust and school to the
following persons.

¶14

(1)Shri Vijaysinha Krishnarao Deshmukh
(2)Shri Madhukar Bhagwan Kulkarni
(3)Shri Vidhyadhar Krishnaji Potdar

¶15

:2:

¶16

(4)Shri Gorakhanath Bhau Patil

¶17

(5)Shri Prataprao Krishnarao Deshmukh

¶18

The above authorised persons with the
consultation of the Opponent No.1 i.e. Shri
Raosaheb Namdeo Patil to manage the trust and
school run by the Trust.

¶19

(2)Theabovepersonswiththe
consultation of Opponent No.1 are empowered to
take the decision by majority and take
necessary action for smooth working of the
trust and it’s school. The above said persons
with the consultation of the Opponent No.1
should work as a caretaker of the Trust and
its school till the final decisions in all the
pending Change Reports.

¶20

(3)The above persons are directed to look
after banking affairs of the Trust and its
schools.

¶21

(4)I hereby appoint the Inspect of this
Office Shri. P.G.Bhosale to look after the
management of above said persons in order to
have check for the smooth working of the
Trust.

¶22

(5)The above said persons are hereby
directed to give their monthly report to Shri
P.G.Bhosale. "

¶23

2.The application was filed by the first

¶24

respondent before me and others and was styled as

¶25

Enquiry No.652 of 2006. The application was filed
under Section 41A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.

¶26

3.This matter was argued for sometime and my

¶27

:3:

¶28

attention was invited to Section 41(a) of the Bombay
Public Trust Act by Mr.Bapat and decisions of this
court. The latest in point of time being the one
reported in 2007(1)Mh.L.J. page 48 in the case of
Dattatraya s/o. Mahadeo Hiware and Ors. vs. Arjun
s/o.Sambhaji Shinde and Ors.

¶29

4.The view taken by this court, is that there is
no specific power to make appointment of a committee
for running of the trust and Charity Commissioner in
exercise of the powers under Section 41(a) can issue
directions only for proper administration of the trust.

¶30

5.It may be that, there is a vacuum on account
of the conflicts between the persons who are managing
the affairs of the trust. It may be that the trust
being an Educational trust, the schools and other
educational institutions are suffering adversely. Yet,
the Assistant Charity Commissioner could not have
directed that the affairs of the trust and school would
be managed by authorised persons who are named in this
order alongwith the present petitioner.

¶31

:4:

¶32

6.After the judgments of this courts are
perused, I see no reason to not to apply the ratio
therein to the facts of this case. Even if the smooth
and proper administration of the trust requires
issuance of certain directions, this court has observed
that there are limits which are inherent in the scheme
of the Act to the power under Section 41(a). In such
circumstances, the order under challenge cannot be
sustained. The impugned order is accordingly quashed
and set aside. However, this does not prevent the
respondent no.1 and others concerned, so also, those
interested in the affairs of the trust from seeking
appropriate directions in accordance with law so as to
ensure smooth, efficient and proper administration and
management of the trust. Such, application if made,
shall be decided on its own merits and in accordance
with law, uninfluenced by the fact that this court has
set aside the subject order.

¶33

**********

¶34

sd/-

Raosaheb Namdev Patil v. Vjayasinha Krishnarao Deshmukh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raosaheb Namdev Patil v. Vjayasinha Krishnarao Deshmukh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rang Biharilal Goel and Ors. Vs Shyam Niwas Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors.

Sharjeel Akbar Kokani Vs the Faize Mercantile Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Salim Akbar Kokani Vs the Faize Mercantile Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Ramesh Golani and Ors. Vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Corp. and Anr.

Vikhya Laxman Wadhan and Ors. Vs Vipul Pranjivan Chheda and Anr.

M/S. Neelkanth Mansions Pvt.Ltd. and Ors. Vs Chandrakant Kantilal Rasputra