KISHOR KAMALAKAR MANTRI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner nos. 1 to 7 and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner no.8, the learned counsel representing 4th , 7th to 10th respondent.

(2.) THE first substantive challenge in this petition under article 226 under Constitution of India is to the order dated 28th June 2000 passed by the learned Charity Commissioner. The 4th respondent is a Public Trust duly registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 (for short 'The said Act'). A scheme for management and administration of the said Trust (for short "the said scheme") was framed by this Court in Suit No. 1867/1927. An Application was made by some of the petitioners by invoking clause 8 of the said scheme for appointment of trustees of the said Trust. The said application was made before the Charity Commissioner. By the impugned order, the learned Charity Commissioner rejected the said application. In paragraph 9 of the impugned order, the learned Charity Commissioner observed that the Official Trustee has exercised the power of appointment of Trustees and unless the appointments made by the Official Trustee are set aside, the application made under clause 8 of the said scheme cannot be entertained.

(3.) THE submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, is that in fact the Official Trustee had not passed any orders of appointment of Trustees. Our attention is invited to the letter dated 20th October, 1989 addressed by Official Trustee to the Chairman of the said Trust by which he gave his consent to the appointment of the 7th and 8th respondents as members of the Board of management of the said Trust. Our attention is also invited to the letters dated 21st October, 2000 and 11th October, 2007 by which the Official Trustee informed the Chairman of the said Trust that he has given his consent for the appointment of 9th and 10th respondents respectively as the members of the Board of Management of the said Trust. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the observation made by the learned Charity Commissioner in paragraph 9 of the impugned order that the appointments of the Trustees made by the Official Trustee is erroneous and therefore, the application made by the petitioners ought to have been decided on merits.