LAXMAN RAGHUNATH GOKHALE Vs. MAHADEV HERAMB DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision against an order made by the learned District Judge of Poona, refusing to execute an order, which he had made, for payment of certain costs on the ground that the order was not an executable one.

(2.) THE question arises in relation to a scheme for regulating a charitable institution known as Chinchwad Sansthan, and I must confess that the question involved seems to me to show that matters have got into a very considerable state of confusion.

(3.) NOW, the first question which arises is whether the District Judge, acting under Clause (4) of the scheme, is to be regarded as acting in a judicial capacity, or is to be treated as persona designata. I think the reference to "the District Judge of Poona" means "the District Judge for the time being". But the question is whether the District Judge for the time being is. to exercise his powers as persona designata or judicially. On the wording of Clause (4) I cannot entertain any doubt that the powers are given to the Judge as persona designata, because he may act upon his own motion, and it is no part of the duties of a Judge acting judicially to look into the affairs of a charitable institution, and take action on his own motion. He would have to be approached in some form of proceedings for the administration of the scheme. As I read Clause (4), it does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court to remove trustees for proper reasons, but it gives the District Judge as persona designata power to remove, a power which could be exercised more quickly and cheaply than by an application to the Court. But if the Judge is acting, not as a Judge, but as persona designata, there can be no appeal, or application in revision, against his order. Nor does any power seem to be given to him, under that clause to make any order as to costs.