KAMLAKAR DARMAN GHARAT Vs. ABHINAV SHETKARI SHIKSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 25/11/2022 we made the following order.

(2.) Mr Desai informed us that the procedure set out in that order, including in paragraph 10, was followed and the election officer has filed an Affidavit at page 640. This appears to have been wrongly filed in another matter. This is a compliance Affidavit of Kishore Balkrushna Chavan affirmed on 6/1/2023. He is the inspector in the office of the Charity Commissioner. He references the 25/11/2022 order at the head of the Affidavit. Then in paragraph 2, Mr Chavan says that on 30/11/2022 he issued a letter to the Abhinav Shetkari Shikshan Mandal, a Public Charitable Trust registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act 1950, the Petitioners and the Applicant in Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2022. He sought a list of valid members, proof of membership, the original membership register and other documents. The notice was duly delivered. The 4th Respondent Trust submitted the original membership register, receipt books and the original receipt showing deposit of membership fees and photocopies. The Petitioners submitted other documents. Mr Chavan also received the record from the office of the Deputy Charity Commissioner regarding the Miscellaneous Application. He then examined the documents and he then personally visited and took inspection of some records seized by the Economic Offence Wing.

(3.) We come now to paragraph 5 of the Affidavit and this is the paragraph to which the Petitioners take exception. Mr Chavan says in his affidavit that the Petitioners failed to submit any document to substantiate or support their objection of a record of 100 members as being forged or fabricated. The submission before us is that the Petitioners 'cannot prove' this and that it was for Mr Chavan or somebody else to prove that, in respect of those 100 members, the records were genuine. The submission by the Petitioners is only to be stated to be rejected. If a person makes an allegation of forgery or fabrication, it is for that person to be able to establish it. Indeed paragraph 5 itself has a sufficient answer because Mr Chavan says that he verified with the record Sec. of his office the accounts submitted with the office by the Trust and found that the Trust account submissions for the years 2012-2013 and the audited accounts did not support the case of the Petitioners. There were cash books, bank books and lender book accounts which recorded receipt of membership fees of these very 100 persons whose membership is said to be suspect of fraudulent or forged or fabricated.