CHARITY COMMISSIONER MAHARASHTRA Vs. NIRANJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Special leave granted against Respondent No. 16 in so far as relief claimed against Respondent No. 16.

(2.) The Charity Commissioner of State of Maharashtra has approached this Court by way of Special leave in order to seek redress in respect of the observations made by the Division Bench of the High Court casting reflections on the conduct of the officials of the organization and in regard to their competence to decide matters in their quasi-judicial capacity. He has also sought a direction against Respondent No. 16 who is present by caveat. We are constrained to observe that the High Court might well have avoided casting reflections against the Deputy Charity Commissioner who was merely discharging his quasi-judicial functions under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. He should have been permitted to discharge his functions in regard to the issues arising before him in the light of his own independent perspective. The observations made by learned single Judge, by the very nature of things, were of a tentative nature as the learned single Judge was deciding the matter arising out of an interlocutory proceeding. In fact, the observations made by the learned single Judge on merits in regard to the interpretation of the clauses of the Will could not have influenced even the trial court. Besides, an appeal to the Division Bench was pending. Under the circumstances, taking a view which was different from the view reflected in the judgment of the learned single Judge on the part of the Deputy Charity Commissioner could by no stretch of imagination be said to have been made in scant regard of the judgment of the High Court. Nor could it ever have been construed as exhibiting disrespect for the High Court. The Division Bench went far too far in observing to the effect that what the Deputy Charity Commissioner had done in discharging his quasi-judicial functions would constitute contempt of Court. Learned Deputy Charity Commissioner was entitled to take his own view subject to this decision being questioned in accordance with law before the High Court. The observations made against the Deputy Charity Commissioner were therefore altogether uncalled for and unfair We, therefore, direct that these observations be treated as non-existent. We wish to make it clear that the Deputy Charity Commissioner has not been amiss or at fault in the smallest respect in taking the view which commended itself to him and which he was at full liberty to take under the law. We wish to place on record that nothing said in the judgment of the Division Bench in Appeal No. 969 of 1974 should be construed as a reflection on the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner. We are also of the view that the observations made in regard to the mode of recruitment to the office in question were also uncalled for and should be treated as non-existent.

(3.) In the facts and circumstances of the case the Division Bench might well have permitted the Charity Commissioner to be substituted for the appellant before the Court for he was merely making sincere endeavour in the discharge of his official duties to protect the interest of the charity as he was duty bound to do, so as to be true to his office. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent No. 16 in regard to the relief claimed against him. Both counsel are agreeable to the directions which follow.