MAHANT RATANDASJI SEVADASJI Vs. BABUBHAI KRISHNASHANKER DAVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein are the Trustee and Manager respectively of a Public Trust which owns properties in Ahmedabad. The respondents herein had applied to the Charity Commissioner under sec. 51 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for permission to file a suit under sec. 50 of the Act. That application was on the footing that the petitioners had committed breaches of trust and were acting against the interests of the trust by mismanaging and misapplying the trust funds and mal administering the trust property. The Joint Charity Commissioner held an inquiry into the matter heard both the parties and by his order dated August 5 1969 he dismissed the application with costs. Against this order of the Joint Charity Commissioner the respondents filed an appeal before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal under the provisions of sec. 51(2) of the Act. On behalf of the petitioners a contention was raised before the Revenue Tribunal that since the legal proceedings in the shape of an appeal before the Revenue Tribunal raised a question affecting the Public Religious or Charitable purpose the Tribunal could not proceed to determine such question until after notice had been given to the Charity Commissioner. That objection was turned down. There was also an application to join the Charity Commissioner as a party to the appeal and that application was also rejected. It is against this decision of the Revenue Tribunal rejecting this application to join the Charity Commissioner that the present Special Civil Application under Art. 227 has been filed.

(2.) Sec. 56B of the Act provides

(3.) Considering the matter from still another angle it seems to me that the Charity Commissioner is totally redundant so far as the appellate proceeding under sec. 51(1) is concerned. The Charity Commissioner himself gave the decision and against his own decision the appeal is being carried to the Revenue Tribunal under sec. 51(2). Under these circumstances it could never have been the intention of the Legislature that a notice about the appeal arising against its own decision should be required to be given to the Charity Commissioner by the Revenue Tribunal when the Revenue Tribunal is deciding the appeal.