VIJAYKUMAR Vs. MANOHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS :

(2.) Under operative order Clause (iii) he directed that the applicants in M. A. No. 52/1999 to hold the reins of administration of trust and to take steps for appointment of other trustees. Pursuant to the said direction in 2002 Manohar Keshavrao Patil/respondent No. 1 herein was appointed as trustee by the said body of "fit persons" which came into existence pursuant to the said judgment and order dated 03.05.2002. However, on 24.10.2006, the respondent No. 1/Manohar Patil resigned from the post of trustee as well as member of the trust by filing an application in writing and that application was considered by the said body of 'fit persons' which accepted his resignation by resolution passed by committee on 31.10.2006 and a Change Report about it was filed vide Change Report Enquiry No. 689 of 2006 before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Osmanabad. The Assistant Charity Commissioner conducted the proceedings of enquiry in absence of the respondent No. 1/Manohar Patil, because he and his advocate were absent and did not adduce any evidence to prove his case after filing his reply Exhibit 13 dated 16.03.2007. Consequently, the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Osmanabad accepted the said change report and directed necessary amendment to Schedule I by his order dated 29.01.2009. The respondent No. 1 challenged the said order in Revision Application No. 31/2009 before the Joint Charity Commissioner Latur who on 11.03.2010 allowed the said revision and held that under Clause 29 of the Constitution of the trust, governing council has power to suspend or cancel the membership of person in case of misconduct committed by such person and, therefore, the governing council is empowered to accept the resignation, but he stated that the body of 'fit persons' not being elected trustees of governing council were not competent to accept the resignation of Manohar Patil as trustee and member of the trust, because body of fit persons was not 'dejure' trustees, but was 'defacto' trustees. Thereafter, the matter went before the District Judge 1, Latur at the instance of present appellants, who filed Application U/Sec. 72(1) of the B.P.T. Act before the District Court, who concurring with the findings recorded by the Joint Charity Commissioner dismissed the application. Hence this second appeal.

(3.) The learned senior counsel for appellants Shri V. J. Dixit, instructed by Shri S. V. Natu made the following submissions :