Trustees challenged orders upholding removal of Respondent No.1 as trustee without notice to him. The Court found the meeting notice was never served on him, violating natural justice, and his removal was not a permitted mode under the Trust constitution; the writ petition was dismissed.
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.
36-WP-3395-2024.DOC
Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3395 OF 2024
Shital D Kauthekar & Anr …Petitioners Versus Niraj Ramesh Jariwala & Ors …Respondents
Mrs. V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP, for the Respondent-State.
CORAM AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J. DATED: 11th June, 2024 PC:-
ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL
Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2024.06.12 13:48:42 +0530
36-WP-3395-2024.DOC
Solapur was removed as a Trustee by Resolution dated 20.1.2008 on the ground that Respondent No.1 had gone abroad. This change was presented under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 to the Assistant Charity Commissioner vide Change Report No. 398 of 2008 which came to be accepted by the order dated 8.9.2008. This order dated 8.9.2008 accepting the change was questioned by Respondent No. 1 by filing a Revision Application under Section 70A of the the Maharashtra Public Trust Act bearing Revision Application No. 27 of 2012 before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner who by Judgment dated 4.6.2012 set aside the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner dated 8.9.2008 rendering a finding that the Resolution dated 20.1.2008, was without any notice to Respondent No.1 and therefore the meeting in which it was passed itself was invalid. This Judgment of learned Charity Commissioner came to be questioned before the District Judge 4, Solapur, under Section 72 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 177 of 2012 who by his
36-WP-3395-2024.DOC
Judgment dated 31.1.2019 has dismissed the application, being aggrieved, by which the present the Petition has been filed.
36-WP-3395-2024.DOC
No.1 on the ground that he had settled out of the country on account of his service which is the endorsement made against his name in the said notice. This would clearly indicate that the removal of Respondent No.1 as a Trustee of the abovesaid Trust, was without any notice. The meeting dated 13.1.2008 held consequent to the aforesaid notice also suffered from the same infirmity. It is a settled position of law that a person cannot be removed from his position without notice to him as that would clearly be against the principles of natural justice which required him to be noticed before such action is to be taken.
36-WP-3395-2024.DOC
under Section 22 of the the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, by the Assistant Charity Commissioner would indicate, that no reliance can be placed on the communication dated 11.7.2008 (page 38).
(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a trustee removed by resolution without notice to him, and whose change report acceptance was set aside in revision, could be reinstated despite his no-objection affidavit.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Shital D Kauthekar
Niraj Ramesh Jariwala
Avinash G. Gharote
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
