PRESIDENT, PUROHIT SANGH Vs. PRABHAKAR RAMCHANDRA GOKHALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these four first appeals and the accompanying civil applications can be and are being so disposed by this common judgment.

(2.) The matter pertains to the Shri Trimbakeshwar Devasthan of Nasik, which is an ancient holy temple and one of the twelve joytirlings. As it is a "temple", it was registered as a "public trust" in the year 1952 known as "Shri Trimbakeshwar Devasthan Nashik" (hereinafter referred to as the "Trust"). That an enquiry under section 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) in respect of the Trust was undertaken by the Assistant Charity Commissioner whence one Shri Joglekar came to be appointed as the sole trustee, with the mode of succession specified as hereditary succession. Accordingly, the said Shri Joglekar was exclusively in the control and management of the affairs of the Trust since 1952 till 1965. Sometime in 1965, an application under section 50-A(1) of the Act was filed for settlement of scheme before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Bombay. After examining the relevant matters, the Joint Charity Commissioner, Bombay framed a scheme vide order dated April 27, 1967. As per this scheme the sole hereditary trustee, during his life time, was to nominate his successor and incorporate the name of his successor-on a piece of paper which was to be kept in a sealed cover with the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The scheme also provided for appointment of an Advisory Board consisting of seven persons to advise the sole trustee in the management of the affairs of the said Trust. Being dissatisfied with the scheme of appointing an Advisory Board of seven persons, the said Shri Joglekar filed an application under section 72 of the Act before the District Court, Nashik, being Application No. 64 of 1967. Besides, another application under section 72 of the Act, came to be filed by the Tungar's contending that they should be included as trustees and not only as the member of the Advisory Board. After considering the said applications, the District Judge, Nashik, by an order dated July 28, 1970, amended some of the clauses of the scheme and held that the provision of sole trustee be retained; but modified the clauses with regard to the composition of the Board. The District Court provided that the Advisory Board would consist of one to be nominated by the sole trustee, one amongst the elected Counsellors of the Trimbakeshwar Municipal Council and two to be nominated by the Charity Commissioner, inter alia, one belonging to the priest family of Tungar's and the other from the donor's of the trust. Obviously both the applicants before the District Court were dissatisfied by the above decision. After this scheme was framed by the District Court, Shri Joglekar, who was the sole trustee under the said scheme, resigned. After his resignation none of the heirs of Joglekar came forward to become the trustee. In this peculiar situation, the Charity Commissioner, Bombay had no option but to invoke suo motu powers under section 50-A for modification of the scheme already settled by the District Court. Till such proceedings were to be finalized, the Charity Commissioner by order dated June 30, 1977, appointed one Shri Gokhale as the sole trustee to administer the affairs of the trust. The said suo motu proceedings were registered as proceeding No. 113 of 1979, in which the representative of the Tungar's which is also a registered Public Trust, as well as the representative of the Purohit Sangh, appeared and contended that they were closely connected with the day to day activities of the Devasthan; and it was necessary to involve them in the affairs of the Trust by appointing one of their representative as member of the Board of Trustees. Besides, Shri Gokhale who was appointed as the interim sole trustee, also participated in the said proceedings. Presumably with a view to get assistance in the framing of the scheme, the Charity Commissioner directed the Deputy Charity Commissioner to prepare an inspection report. In compliance of that direction, the Deputy Charity Commissioner submitted his Inspection Note dated Sept. 4, 1978. None of the parties adduced any oral or documentary evidence before the Charity Commissioner. In the circumstances the Joint Charity Commissioner, Bombay proceeded to decide the suo motu proceedings No. 113 of 1979 on the basis of the information made available in the said inspection note and the oral submissions advanced by the respective parties. Shri Gokhale who was appointed as the sole trustee to administer the affairs of Devasthan took serious objection to the inclusion of the representative of Tungar's or for that matter of Purohit Sangh on the Board of Trustees. According to him, Tungars were directly involved in the collection of offerings made to the deity and whereas the Purohits were directly paid by the devotees visiting the Devasthan. In other words, the objection was that both Tungars and Purohits had pecuniary interest and, therefore, had conflict of interest in the affairs of the Trust, for which reason they were not fit even for being considered as members of the Board of trustees. The Charity Commissioner considered the materials on record and the rival contentions and found that there was absolutely no dispute that Tungars and Purohits were doing various ceremonies in the temple and were directly associated with the activities of the worship. In the circumstances, the Charity Commissioner found that both the Tungars and the Purohits have lot of share in the management of the affairs of the trust as they were connected with the religious ceremonies of the temple and in fact were responsible for the improvement of the Devasthan. It is in this back drop the Charity Commissioner thought that it would be in the fitness of things to give representation to both these class of persons who were closely associated and connected with the day to day affairs of the management of the trust. The Charity Commissioner also modified the earlier scheme to the extent of the composition of the Advisory Board. As per this order the Board of Trustees-who would be in charge of the affairs of the Devasthan and would be responsible for the day to day management and administration of the trust, would consist of only five members. According to the Charity Commissioner, besides the representatives of Tungar s and Purahit's respectively, three other persons were to be appointed as members of the Board of Trustees. The eligibility for appointment of those persons was specified as any adult male or female person belonging to Hindu Community, a devotee of the said temple and preferably residing at Trimbakeshwar. In so far as the representative of Tungar's the name of Yadav Laxman Tungar was recommended by the Tungar's Public Trust; and in so far as the representative of Purohit Sangh is concerned it was left to the Sangh to recommend the name of a suitable fit person within 3 months to the Assistant Charity Commissioner Nasik, failing which the Assistant Charity Commissioner was to appoint some other person in his place. In so far as the other three members from the general public is concerned, the Charity Commissioner accepted the applications filed by Shri Damodar Pundlik Adasare, Shri Ramratan Punamchand Sarda and Shri Murlidhar Punjaji Pawar and appointed them as trustees on the Board of Trustees. The Charity Commissioner accordingly disposed of the suo mote proceedings by order dated 30-11-1981.

(3.) Against this decision, said Shri Prabhakar Ramchandra Gokhale, who was appointed as the interim sole trustee, filed an application under section 72 of the Act before the District Court at Nasik being CMA No. 109 of 1984. This application essentially took objection to the modification of the scheme by including representatives of Tungars and Purohits. Besides, objection was also taken to the inclusion of Shri Damodar Pundalik Adasare as one of the trustee amongst the general category of trustees - on the ground that he was staying jointly with his brother who was the tenant in respect of the trust property and therefore, was unfit as had conflict of interest with the affairs of the trust. In the said proceedings, the three families who have been recognised as Pujaris viz. Deshputre, Shukla and Telangi also intervened and their intervention application was allowed. They were represented by Advocate Sarda as can be discerned from the record. According to them, inclusion of Tungars as members of the Board of Trustees was inappropriate-because Tungars had direct pecuniary interest in the offerings made to the deity and there was bound to be conflict of interest with the affairs of the trust. It was further contended on behalf of Pujaris that the term of life term of trusteeship under the present scheme be reduced to a fixed period for better administration of the trust. The representatives of Tungars and Purohits also appeared before the District Court and reiterated their arguments that they were closely connected with the day to day activities of the temple in general and with the worship of the deity in particular. It was, therefore, contended on their behalf that inclusion of their representative would not only be desirable but useful so as to given them representation in the management and administration of the trust. The District Court considered the stand taken by the respective parties and, by the impugned judgment and order dated 28-12-1993, was pleased to allow the appeal preferred by Shri Gokhale thereby setting aside the modification of the scheme of including the representative of Purohits and Tungars as ordered by the Charity Commissioner. Instead the Court held that the said two persons would be replaced by the Civil Judge, Senior Division to be nominated by the District Judge who would act as an ex officio Chairman of Board of trustees of the Devasthan and by the Chief Executive Officer of Trimbakeshwar Municipality as the ex-officio trustee and in his absence or his inability his next subordinate to be appointed as the ex officio trustee. The District Court, however, did not disturb the appointments of the other three persons appointed as trustees in the general category.