VAJUBHAI PATEL Vs. CHARITY COMMISSIONER MAHARASHTRA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are cross petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution aimed at the verdict of the Charity Commissioner (CC) in a proceeding under section 41-D r. w. 41-E of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (B. P. T. A. ).

(2.) BASIC education is one of the many concepts which this country owes to Mahatma Gandhi. To popularise this ideal certain individuals including Vajubhai Patel in 1964 organised themselves into a Council known as the Indian Council of Basic Education. In April 1964, the Council was registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1860 (SR. Act) as also the B. P. T. A. Vajubhai, amongst others was recorded as a Manager as also a Trustee of the Council and the application for registration was moved by him. Accompaniments to the application included a Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations. The latter recited that the management of the affairs of the Council vested in the Board of Governors (B. G.) which was to be the sole executive of the Council. It was also stipulated that the General Body of the Council would appoint a Board of Trustees (B. T.) once its assets exceeded the value of Rs. 10,000/ -. This came about in 1969 and the General Body elected a B. T. who included Mohanbhai, as also Vajubhai the principal contestants in this litigation. Mohanbhai and Nayanbhai are father and son respectively. Their munificence enabled Vijubhai to obtain sizable donations to enable the Council to start a School and College. The School was to be named after Mohanbhais father and the College of Education after his mother. The prefix to both names were the words "gandhi Shikshan Bhawan". It is the alleged misdeeds in relation to the College which gave rise to the proceedings before the CC. It began functioning as from the academic session 1970-71. Till about November 1971, Vijubhai was the Principal of the College. His functioning as such was not accepted as he was a mere B. A. Pass Class coupled with an M. A. from the Columbia University. Neither came upto the qualifications prescribed for a Principalship by the Bombay University to which the College was affiliated. Despite recommendations by some individuals to accept Vajubhai for the post, the university was unrelenting. Vajubhai vacated the office to be followed therein by witnesses Dr. Bhave and Mrs. Ankolvil. The trust had contracted a building for the College on site taken on lease on its behalf by Vajubhai as the sole lessee and therefore in 1973 or thereabouts moved into the same, Vacating the rented premises taken earlier. In course of time Chotabhai and Nayanbhai also became members of the B. T. The proceedings which have given rise to these petitions arise out of an application attributing to Vajubhai, his wife Leelabehn, Sonalbehn Shukla and Kusumbehn Thakkar various sins of omission and commission allegedly attracting section 41-D B. P. T. A. The lapses were formalised into charges numbering 63. The proceeding begun in 1881 dragged on and culminated in 1989 in the verdict of the CC. To be brief, the CC exonerated Vajubhai, Leelabehn, Sonalbehn, and Kusumbehn of all the charges levelled against them. This exoneration is assailed by Mohanbhai, Chotabhai and Nayanbhai through W. P. No. 450 of 1989. The Cc found that there were certain irregularities which needed rectification. The B. G. and B. T. were directed to rectify the errors. Following the initial suspension, Vajubhai, Leelabehn and Sonalbehn were restrained from participating in the management of the trusts affairs. This was continued vide orders passed in Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 833 and 1200 of 1981 and 630 of 1982. Initially an interim board of management and administration was appointed until the disposal of one of the above petitions. By order dated 30-7-1986, Pendse, J. , made this Boards terms co-extensive with the conclusion of the enquiry by the CC. A sentence from the order, relied upon by Vajubhai etc. , reads thus:-

(3.) INTERVENING events in the sense of proceedings having a bearing on the points herein for determination, had their origin-partly at least in the substitution of the Rules and Regulations of 1964 by another set in 1976. The two sets will for the sake of avoiding confusion be hereafter referred to as the 1964 and 1976 Rules. The 1976 Rules were taken exception to in Suit No. 3476 of 1984 by Mohanbhai and Chotabhai. That suit was against the Council with the CC being impleaded as a profroma defendant. On 1-7-1989 the said suit was decreed. Another suit bearing No. 2002 of 1982 was filed in the City Civil Court by one D. T. Sanghavi and another. Again the object was to impugn the 1976 Rules and an interim injunction staying the operation of the same was issued. Mohanbhai has instituted an application seeking the formulation of a scheme by the CC to regulate working of the trust. That application is still pending.