SUKHDEO PANDURANG SARODE Vs. KAILASHCHANDRA SHIVCHARANLAL UJAWANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these writ petitions raise a challenge to the order dated 23/10/2018 passed in proceedings under Section 50A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short, the said Act) they are being decided together by this common judgment. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) " Bharat Navnirman Sanstha, Nagpur" (hereinafter referred to as the Public Trust) has been duly registered under provisions of the said Act. On 08/11/2006 the learned Joint Charity Commissioner in proceedings under Section 41-D of the said Act passed an order suspending some of the Trustees and thereafter appointed a body of fit persons to manage the Trust. That order was challenged in Writ Petition No.5810/2006 and this Court while maintaining the order suspending the trustees had directed the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner to adjudicate a pending Change Report that sought to report a change pursuant to elections held on 19/03/2005. In the meanwhile on 24/07/2006 an application came to be filed bearing No.1090/2006. The said proceedings were registered under Section 50-A of the said Act. The proceedings were thereafter placed before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner and were registered as Application No.2/2006. The said proceedings came to be ultimately decided on 23/10/2018 and the learned Joint Charity Commissioner recorded a finding that it was necessary to frame a scheme for the proper administration and management of the Public Trust. After the scheme was framed the First Board of Trustees was also appointed and the said Board was directed to hold elections for electing a new Board of Trustees. This order is the subject matter of challenge in these writ petitions.

(3.) In Writ Petition No.8594/2018 it is submitted by Shri R. L. Khapre, learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner had no jurisdiction to decide the said proceedings especially in view of the fact that the provisions of Section 50-A of the said Act had been amended by Maharashtra Act No.55/2017 and the said amendment which came into force on 10/10/2017 had conferred jurisdiction on the Assistant or Deputy Charity Commissioner to consider the proceedings under Section 50-A of the said Act. Further by virtue of provisions of Section 70 of the said Act as amended an appeal was provided from the order passed by the Assistant/Deputy Charity Commissioner before the Joint Charity Commissioner. Thus on the day when the proceedings were adjudicated the learned Joint Charity Commissioner did not have original jurisdiction to decide the said proceedings. He further submitted that without considering the aspect whether the requirements of Section 50-A of the said Act had been satisfied the learned Joint Charity Commissioner proceeded to frame a scheme for the Public Trust. Placing reliance on the decisions in A. R. Antulay vs. R. S. Nayak and anr. (1988) 2 SCC 602, Taher Alimohohamad Poonawala vs. Quizar Shaikh Nomanbhoy and ors . 1995(1) Mh.L.J. 906, Mallikarjun Basvanappa Masute and anr. vs. Dattatraya Krushnath Wadane and ors. 2005(2) Mh.L.J. 266, Vasantrao Vishwanathrao Mane and ors. vs. Apparao Baibanna Sidore and ors. 2008(3) Mh.L.J. 242 and Anil s/o Govindrao Shirkhedkar vs. Babanrao Ganpatrao Wadaskar and ors. 2013(3) Mh.L.J. 849 it was submitted that the impugned order did not indicate any such satisfaction being recorded by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner that the requisite conditions existed for framing a scheme. It was also submitted that the parties were not permitted to examine any witnesses nor was there any reason given for appointing the First Board of Trustees especially when pursuant to Change Report No.686/2017 the elected members were in- charge of the management of the Public Trust. It was thus submitted that the impugned order was liable to be set aside.