SANDEEP RAM MEGHE Vs. PUNDLIKRAO BALAJI GOHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two second appeals impugn the judgment and order passed by District Judge1, Amravati while disposing of Misc. Civil Application Nos. 21 of 2012 and 40 of 2012 by common judgment and order dated 22nd June, 2012. Said two Misc.Civil Applications arose out of a common judgment and order dated 13th December, 2011 passed by learned Joint Charity Commissioner in Appeal Nos. 3 of 2010 and 4 of 2010. Appeal No. 3 of 2010 and 4 of 2010 had arisen out of the order passed by Deputy Charity Commissioner, Amravati in Enquiry No.135 of 2007 under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.

(2.) The said enquiry under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act was initiated on the change report submitted by appellant No.1 Shri Sandeep Ram Meghe in Second Appeal No. 408 of 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "appellant No.1" ). The said change report was in respect of the change in the Executive Committee of Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society, Amravati. Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society, Amravati is a public trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 vide Registration No.F242/ Amravati. Elections were held on 3rd December, 2006 and in the result new executive committee was elected. 67 members out of total 78 members had participated in the election meeting held by Election Officer Advocate Mr. Sarda. Appellant No.1, therefore, filed change report. Respondent Nos.1 to 10 and 11 to 15 in two separate groups objected for the change. The learned Deputy Charity Commissioner after hearing both the parties had accepted the change report vide his order dated 7th December, 2009. The objection raised before the Deputy Charity Commissioner by the respondents was that 49 members were inducted in trust clandestinely and illegally in the so called meeting dated 2nd March, 2006 and as such they had not right to participate in the elections held on 3rd December, 2006. The said plea was turned down by the Deputy Charity Commissioner and the change was allowed.

(3.) The said order of the Deputy Charity Commissioner was challenged before the Joint Charity Commissioner in two separate appeals filed by the respondents being Appeal Nos.3 of 2010 and 4 of 2010. The Appeal No.3 of 2010 was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 10 and the appeal No.4 of 2010 was filed by the respondent No.11 to 15 in Second Appeal No.408 of 2012. It was submitted before the Joint Charity Commissioner by the respondents in their appeal Nos. 3 of 2010 and 4 of 2010 referred to above that induction of 49 members in the so called meeting dated 2nd March, 2006 was on basis of forged documents. It was contended that no such meeting was ever held and that the minutes of the meetings dated 2nd March, 2006 and 12th April, 2006 were fabricated inasmuch as backdated resolutions were passed so that the appellants herein who were the respondents before the Joint Charity Commissioner could establish their majority during the course of elections. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner while deciding said two appeals allowed Appeal No. 3 of 2010 and dismissed Appeal No. 4 of 2010. In fact, both the appellants had raised similar issues. However, Appeal No. 4 of 2010 was dismissed mainly on the ground that the appellants therein (Respondent Nos. 11 to 15 in Second Appeal No.408 of 2012) had participated in the said two meetings dated 2nd March, 2006 and 12th April, 2006. The appellants in Appeal No. 4 of 2010 had, however, later on alleged that their signatures were obtained by force.