Appeal against District Judge's dismissal of Section 72 application. Court rejected appeal as appellants failed to prove locus standi as trustees/managers and lacked proper record of management or scheme modification under the Trust Act.
First appeal stands rejected. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 FA 1532-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.1532 OF 2017
| 1) | Baburao s/o Bansi Wayndeshkar, Age 69 years, Occupation Manager And Poojari / Bhope of Shri Dattatraya Mandir (Chakradhar Charankit Sansthan), Village Bagpimpalgaon Taluka Georai Dist. Beed, R/o Village Bagpimpalgaon Tq. Georai Dist. Beed. |
|---|---|
| 2) | Motiram s/o Bansi Wayndeshkar, Age 66 years, Occupation and R/o As above. ...Appellants. |
| VERSUS | |
| 1) | Bhagwat s/o Narayan Kotambe, Age 34 years, Occupation Labourer, R/o Village Bagpimpalgaon Taluka Georai Dist. Beed. |
| 2) | Bharat s/o Babasaheb Kotambe, Age 32 years, occupation Agriculture, R/o As above. |
| 3) | Madhukar s/o Pralhad Kotambe, Age 38 years, Occupation Labour, R/o As above. |
| 4) | Narayan s/o Salikram Kotambe, Age 63 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o As above. |
| 5) | Prakash s/o Dattatraya Kotambe, Age 63 years, Occupation and R/o As above. |
| 6) | Vilas s/o Uttamrao Kotambe, Age 41 years, Occupation and R/o As above. |
2 FA 1532-2017
….
Mr. R. S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for Appellants. Mr. A. N. Sikchi, Advocate, for Respondents No.1 to 7. Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP, for Respondent No.8-State.
….
CORAM : SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. Date : 09-09-2019.
ORDER :
3 FA 1532-2017
reconstructed in the year 2001-2003. The respondents No.1 to 7 are only devotees and followers of ‘Mahanubhav Panth’ and not concerned with the management of the temple. They had fled a scheme to take over the management of temple illegally. The said scheme was granted by learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Beed, and therefore, the said miscellaneous application was fled under Section 72 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act for setting aside the order passed by learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, dated 28-05-2015 in Inquiry No.99 of 2013.
4 FA 1532-2017
the temple, and it was then held that, there is no necessity to interfere in the Judgment and order passed by learned Assistant charity Commissioner, thereby the said application came to be dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.
5 FA 1532-2017
decision in, Omprakash Gulabchand Partani and Ors. Vs. Charity Commissioner, reported in 2008(1) ALL MR 228, wherein it has been held that,
“Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act entitles a person aggrieved by the decision of the Charity Commissioner under the provision of Section 50-A of the Act to apply to the Court to set aside the said decision. An order or decision under Section 50-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act though it pertained to the modifcation of the scheme, could be challenged only before the District Court under the provisions of Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act.”
He therefore, prayed for setting aside the decision by the learned District Judge and it was submitted that, inquiry be directed to be held into the formulation of scheme.
6 FA 1532-2017
certifcates issued by Grampanchayat, the appellants were contending that, they are the Managers and Pujaris of the temple. It can be seen that, though it is stated that, the Trust was registered way back in 1953 by the Nizam Government of Hyderabad State yet it appears that, there was no attempt on the part of either the present appellants or their predecessors to get their names included in the PTR extract as benefciaries. Even at the time of reregistration of the Trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act in the year 1961, their names are not appearing. It further appears that, the temple was renovated in 2001-2003 but there is no record about the same with Assistant Charity Commissioner, that means, whatever if at all has been done by the appellants, is not as per the procedure laid down under the Trust Act. They have not produced any account of the expenditure incurred by them on the said renovation. No change report regarding it, is stated to have been communicated to the ofce of Assistant charity Commissioner. Therefore, under which circumstance the appellants were claiming that, they were managing the Trust, itself is a question. Certainly on the basis of two certifcates issued by Grampanchayat, it cannot be stated that, they have the said capacity. When locus standi of the appellants itself was not established, and further as it appears from the record that, only the Tahsildar was appointed as Trustee and he was supposed to manage the temple, on the basis of his application the scheme was formulated, then if aggrieved, the remedy for the
7 FA 1532-2017
appellants was elsewhere. They had not participated in the said proceeding before Assistant Charity Commissioner. Further still they have their own remedy under the Trust Act for modifcation of the scheme, if any. No doubt in view of the aforesaid decision, they had the remedy under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, yet as aforesaid since they had failed to prove their locus standi, no case is made out to entertain and interfere with the Judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge. Hence, the frst appeal stands rejected. No order as to costs.
(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI) JUDGE
vjg/-.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants established their locus standi as Managers and Pujaris of the temple.
Whether the District Judge erred in dismissing the application under Section 72 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act.
Whether the appellants' claim of hereditary rights was substantiated by lawful authority.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Omprakash Gulabchand Partani and Ors. Vs. Charity CommissionerReferred¶24
Omprakash Gulabchand Partani and Ors. Vs. Charity Commissioner, reported in 2008(1) ALL MR 228
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Baburao s/o Bansi Wayndeshkar
Motiram s/o Bansi Wayndeshkar
Bhagwat s/o Narayan Kotambe
Bharat s/o Babasaheb Kotambe
Madhukar s/o Pralhad Kotambe
Narayan s/o Salikram Kotambe
Vibha Kankanwadi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
