USHAKIRAN ARUN THUTE Vs. JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition seeks to challenge the two orders (i) order below Exh.61 by which the article of charge has been framed by the learned Jt. Charity Commissioner on 24/5/2022 (page 85) and (ii) the order dtd. 03/4/2023, passed by the learned Jt. Charity Commissioner below Exh. 66, rejecting the application filed by the present petitioners for cross examining the witness of the applicants / respondents herein, who has been examined by them for proving the charge.

(2.) Mr. Paliwal, learned counsel for the petitioners insofar as the first order dtd. 24/5/2022 is concerned, submits that the petitioners were not concerned with the permission granted under Sec. 36(1)(a) and (c) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and therefore, cannot be held to have violated the terms of permission thereof and therefore, would not be susceptible to a charge as framed on 24/5/2022 (page 85). It is however, material to note that it is not a disputed position that the respondent No.5 had applied for permission under Sec. 36(1)(a) and (c) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act for development and sale of portion of the Trust property which was rejected by the order dtd. 25/6/2003 (page 112). It is not in dispute that the present managing committee which includes the petitioners have made development upon portion of the Trust property. In that light of the matter, it cannot be said that the present managing committee was not bound by the order dtd. 25/6/2003, considering which, the challenge to the framing of the charge dtd. 24/5/2022, cannot be sustained and is accordingly rejected.

(3.) Insofar as the order dtd. 03/4/2023, below Exh.66 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, who are charged of having committed disobedience of the order of the learned Jt. Charity Commissioner dtd. 25/6/2003, would not have a right to cross-examine the witness put forth by the present respondent No.5 in support of the charge, as according to him because of the amendment to Sec. 41(D)(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, the opportunity of cross-examination of a witness has been done away with. For that proposition, he relies upon the provision of Sec. 41(D)(2) of the Act as it stood before the amendment of 2017.