Dismissed

Shyamlal Memorial Education Society Udgir Thr Its Vikram Nilkanthrao Sankaye v. the Joint Charity Commissioner and Others

Bombay HC6 Jul 2021WP/5034/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Petition challenging the rejection of an application to frame a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of an inquiry application under Section 41-A of the MPT Act was dismissed. The Court held that such inquiries are administrative, not judicial, thus preliminary issues are not necessary.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. The petition is dismissed.

Shyamlal Memorial Education Society Udgir Thr Its… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

(1)

¶2

939 WP-5034.2021.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

939 WRIT PETITION NO.5034 OF 2021

¶5

SHYAMLAL MEMORIAL EDUCATION SOCIETY UDGIR THROUGH ITS VIKRAM NILKANTHRAO SANKAYE VERSUS THE JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

¶6

Mr. R.D. Biradar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh, advocate holding for Mr. A.D. Kawre, Advocate for the respondents.

¶7

CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J. DATE : 06-07-2021.

¶8

ORDER :

¶9

Heard Mr. Biradar, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition takes exception to the order dated 11.02.2021 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur in Application No. 143/2018, whereby the application filed by the petitioners, seeking to frame a preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the application under Section 41-A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act (“MPT Act”), has been rejected. Mr. Biradar submits that it was necessary for the Joint charity Commissioner to have framed the preliminary issue, as the application under 41-A of the MPT Act was not tenable as it was beyond jurisdiction of the Joint Charity Commissioner.

¶10

A perusal of Section 41-A of the MPT Act demonstrates that the Charity Commissioner, has the authority and power, to issue directions to any trustee of a public trust or any person connected

¶11

(2)

¶12

939 WP-5034.2021.odt

¶13

therewith, to ensure that the trust is properly administered and the income thereof is properly accounted for or duly appropriated and applied to the objects of the trust and also to give directions, to the trustees or such person, if he finds any property of the trust was being in danger or being wasted, damaged, alienated or wrongfully sold, removed or disposed of.

¶14

By an application dated 25.09.2018 addressed to the Joint Charity Commissioner, a complaint was made to make an enquiry into the affairs of the trust by appointing an Administrator and after determining who were the legal members of the trust, to take the election of the Managing Committee as per the trust deed. This application, was taken on record as an application under Section 41-A of the MPT Act by an order dated 25.09.2018. It is submitted, that by an order dated 12.12.2018, the Joint Charity Commissioner partly allowed the same and directed election to be taken of the Managing Committee of the trust within three months. This order came to be challenged in this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 1450 of 2019,which came to be decided on 27.02.2019, whereby the order dated 12.12.2018 came to be set aside, and notices were directed to be issued to persons, who in the opinion of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, were the necessary parties for deciding the application and after permitting them to participate in the proceedings, to decide the matter afresh. Thereafter, the present petitioners, have filed an application at Exh.51, to frame preliminary issue as to whether the application under Section 41-A of

¶15

(3)

¶16

939 WP-5034.2021.odt

¶17

the MPT Act was maintainable and to decide the same. This has been rejected by the impugned order.

¶18

The enquiry under section 41-A of the MPT Act cannot be equated with an enquiry, of a judicial nature, as contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure. It is therefore, not necessary for the Joint Charity Commissioner to have framed a preliminary issue, as to the maintainability of the application under Section 41-D of the MPT Act. The application as filed by the petitioners for this purpose, therefore, is clearly misconceived and has rightly been rejected by the Joint Charity Commissioner. It is pertinent to note that the proceedings before the Joint Charity Commissioner have been directed to be decided in a time bound manner, by the order dated 27^th February 2019, passed in Writ Petition No. 1450 of 2019, which time has long since expired but has been extended from time to time. Needless to say, that while deciding any application under Section 41-A of the MPT Act, the learned Charity Commissioner is bound by the parameters as contained in Section 41-A of the MPT Act, and cannot traverse beyond what is provided therein. The apprehension expressed by Mr. Biradar that though elections have been held and change reports under Section 22 of the MPT Act are pending, would be ignored by the Joint Charity Commissioner, while deciding the application under Section 41-A of the MPT Act, as of now is misconceived, as there is nothing on record to indicate otherwise. Reliance on the case of Vanmala Manoharrao Kambli vs. Deputy Charity Commissioner, 2012 (3) Mh.L.J. 594 and

¶19

(4)

¶20

939 WP-5034.2021.odt

¶21

specifically para-29 thereof by Mr. Biradar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is of no assistance, for the matter in hand.

¶22

The petition, therefore, is dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE)

¶24

VD_Dhirde

Shyamlal Memorial Education Society Udgir Thr Its Vikram Nilkanthrao Sankaye v. the Joint Charity Commissioner and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamlal Memorial Education Society Udgir Thr Its Vikram Nilkanthrao Sankaye v. the Joint Charity Commissioner and Others

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

Savitrabai Govinda Chavan Thr Power of Att Govind Pela (Pelat) Chavan Vs Jijabai Popat Chavan and Ors.

Deelipkumar Sagarmal Saboo Vs Ramavtar Sagarmal Saboo

Neha Sunil Aggrawal and Others Vs Chandrakant Ratilal Mehata and Others

Manojkumar Kanahiyalal Nathani Vs Zilla Parishad Jalgaon and Others

Natthu Ramkrushna Mahajan and Others Vs the Zilla Parishad Jalgaon and Others

Chandulal Prabhudas Udasi Vs Zilla Parishad Jalgaon and Others