Disposed¶4

Lord Buddhas Sariputra Gyaan Prasarak Shikshn Sanstha, Thr. President Shri Puranchandra K. Meshram v. State of Maharashtra, through Department of Education, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC14 Jan 2025WP/8136/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition 8136/2019, Bombay HC Nagpur Bench DB, decided 14/01/2025 (2025:BHC-NAG:411-DB); petitioner trust sought State action against respondent 4, confiscation of respondent 5 school records, restraint on policy decisions, withdrawal of appointment approvals; Court: petitioner Trust is itself the Disciplinary Authority over its employees, no interference called for; remedy against office bearers under Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950; petition disposed of with liberty to pursue legal remedies.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief or direction granted; the petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as is permissible and available in law. ¶4

Lord Buddhas Sariputra Gyaan Prasarak Shikshn Sanstha, Thr. President Shri Puranchandra K. Meshram Vs State of Maharashtra, through Department of Education, Mumbai and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief or direction granted; the petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as is permissible and available in law.

¶4

Issue for consideration

Whether interference by this Court is called for in respect of the action sought against the employees of the petitioner Trust (in connection with respondent 4). +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

Since the employees in relation to whom action is sought are employees of the petitioner Trust, the petitioner Trust itself is the Disciplinary Authority; no interference by this Court is called for, and it is for the petitioner to initiate disciplinary action against its employees if it so desires.

¶2

Ratio / Principle

Where other office bearers of the Trust act against the interest of the Trust, the remedy lies under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950, to which the aggrieved trustees can take recourse.

¶3

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), Writ Petition No.8136/2019 (2025:BHC-NAG:411-DB), disposed of on 14/01/2025 by Nitin W. Sambre and Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi, JJ. Lord Buddha’s Sariputra Gyaan Prasarak Shikshan Sanstha, Bramhapuri (a Trust through its President) prayed for directions to respondents 1–3 (State) to act against respondent 4 for alleged illegal activities, to confiscate the official records of the respondent 5 school from his custody, to restrain him from major policy decisions, and to withdraw approvals granted to appointments made by him which the petitioner alleged were based on false and fraudulent documents. The Court held that as the concerned persons are employees of the petitioner Trust, the Trust itself is the Disciplinary Authority and no judicial interference was called for, it being for the petitioner to initiate disciplinary action if it so desires; and that grievances against other office bearers acting against the Trust’s interest fall under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950, to which aggrieved trustees may resort. The petition stood disposed of with liberty to pursue remedies available in law.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:411-DB

¶2

1 947.wp.8136.19

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.8136/2019

¶5

Lord Buddha’s Sariputra Gyaan Prasarak Shikshan Sanstha, Bramhapuri Vs.

¶6

State of Maharashtra and Ors.

¶7

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

¶9

Ms Tejal Agre, Advocate h/f. Mr. S. P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶10

Ms S. S. Jachak, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State.

¶11

Mr. Sanket Walde, Advocate h/f. Mr. O. D. Kakde, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶12

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND

¶13

MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

¶14

DATED : 14/01/2025.

¶15

. A Trust through its President is before this Court with following prayers :

¶16

“It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to :-

¶17

a) By an appropriate writ, order and/or direction, direct the respondents 1, 2 and 3 to initiate action against the respondent 4 for the illegal activities carried out at his behest;

¶18

b) By an appropriate writ, order and/or direction, direct the respondents 1, 2 and 3 to confiscate the official records of the respondent 5 school from the illegal custody of respondent 4 and further restrain the respondent 4 from taking any illegal and major policy decision pertaining to the respondent school as well as the petitioner trust;

¶19

c) By an appropriate writ, order and/or direction, direct the respondents 1, 2 and 3 to initiate appropriate steps to withdraw the

¶20

2 947.wp.8136.19

¶21

approvals granted to the appointments made by the respondent 4 on basis of false and fraudulent documents showing false general body meetings and forging signatures of the president of the petitioner trust;

¶22

d) Grant any other relief to which the petitioner is entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the petition; e) Saddle the cost of the instant petition on the respondents.”

¶23

As far as the employees in relation to whom the action is sought to be initiated are employees of the petitioner Trust, the petitioner Trust itself is a Disciplinary Authority and in such an eventuality, no interference is called for in the matter as it is for the petitioner to initiate the disciplinary action if so desires, against its employees.

¶24

In case, if the other office bearers of the Trust are acting against the interest of Trust, there is a remedy provided under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 to which the petitioner’s trustees, who are aggrieved, can always take recourse too.

¶25

The petition accordingly stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as is permissible and available in law.

¶26

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶27

RGurnule

Lord Buddhas Sariputra Gyaan Prasarak Shikshn Sanstha, Thr. President Shri Puranchandra K. Meshram v. State of Maharashtra, through Department of Education, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lord Buddhas Sariputra Gyaan Prasarak Shikshn Sanstha, Thr. President Shri Puranchandra K. Meshram v. State of Maharashtra, through Department of Education, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Keshav Sitaram Gayki (C-5462) Vs Special Police Inspector General Prison (East Region), Nagpur and Another

Mahendra Subhashrao Dehankar Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Revenue Department, Mumbai and Ors.

Laxman Umraoji Nagpure Vs Sanjeev Jaiswal, Chief Executive Officer, Mah. Housing and Area Dev. Authority, Mumbai and Ors.

Prakash S/O Nivrutti Dhumal Vs the Maha. Pollution Control Board, Thr. Member Secretary, Mumbai and Another

Anil S/O Ramrao Devalkar Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Department of Home, Mumbai and Others

Jyoti Vitthalrao Magar and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Public Health Department, Mumbai Thr. Chief Secretary and Ors.