SAHEBRAO TATYARAO WAGH Vs. JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfed with the judgment and order dtd. 31/3/2022 passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Joint C.C.") in Suo -Motu Application No. 136 of 2018 under Sec. 47 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 ("the Act" for short), the present appellants have preferred this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the appeal are as under : The present respondent No.3 i.e. Trust is registered under the Act being religious charitable trust, which consists of temple of God Shri. Mhaishashwar Mandir. However, there were serious allegations against the respondents - trustees, involving misappropriation of money and mismanagement of trustees. The Assistant Charity Commissioner fled proposal for enquiry of the Trust. In the year 2015, the learned Joint C.C. had removed the Board of trustees of Trust Shri Mhaishashwar Mandir, Chowka, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad and its administration and management was handed over to concerned Tahsildar. In the year 2018, the Assistant Charity Commissioner sent a proposal under Sec. 47 of the Act for enquiry. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Joint Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad issued a public notice and called applications from public at large for appointing the trustees on the Trust. Accordingly the appellants, present respondent Nos.4 to 14 and others in all 157 persons submitted their applications before the learned Joint C.C. Thereafter, the learned Joint C.C. completed necessary formalities and appointed present respondent Nos.4 to 14 as trustees of the respondent No. 3 - Trust. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that, the present appellants had submitted applications for being appointed as trustees along-with the other applicants including the present respondent Nos.4 to 14. However, the learned Joint C.C. without assigning any reasons appointed respondent Nos.4 to 14 and discarded the applications of the appellants. He further submitted that, according clause 9 -C of the scheme of the Trust, the learned Joint C.C. should not have appointed respondent No. 7, who suppressed his conviction in criminal prosecution under Sec. 147, 148 and 324 of Indian Penal Code. He vehemently argued that, in the entire impugned judgment the learned Joint C.C., Aurangabad has not given any reason justifying the appointments of present respondent Nos.4 to 14.