HIRALAL JAIRAM THACKER Vs. KULIN HIRALAL THACKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT. The advocate for the Respondent nos.2 to 5 waives service. The learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service for the sixth respondent. The name of the first respondent is already deleted. By consent of the advocates appearing for the parties the appeal is forthwith taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THE appellants are the trustees of a trust known as "Shri Lalji Ratasnhi, Meghji Manji Gopalji Vishram, Meghji Moraraji and Purushotam Kanji, Shri Bhuj Lohana Boarding (hereinafter referred to as "the said Trust"). The said trust was established by a Deed of Trust dated 10th October 1923. An application was made by the petitioners before the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Mumbai by invoking the provisions of Section 50A(1) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1950"). The prayer made in the said application was for framing a scheme for management and administration of the said trust. The said application was rejected by the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner by judgment and order dated 25th November 2005. The learned Deputy Charity Commissioner was of the view that the Deed of Trust dated 10th October 1923 was a comprehensive deed for proper and effective management of the trust activities. The learned Deputy Charity Commissioner referred to the rules framed as regards Lohana Boarding School, at Bhuj. He noted that founding and maintaining a Boarding School and Hostel for poor and deserving students of Lohana community at Bhuj is the prime object of the trust. He pointed out that now the objects of the trust is sought to be changed by providing for setting up of a vocational training institute and to carry on additional activities as a charitable object. The learned Deputy Charity Commissioner held that it is not established that it was desirable for proper management of the trust to frame a scheme. He observed that if the appellants want to introduce new object of establishing an institution of vocational training at Bhuj, they can seek permission for introducing the new object in the original Trust Deed and only for that purpose framing of a new scheme was not warranted. He observed that the resolution for framing a scheme is not passed unanimously by the trustees.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that there was no opposition to the resolution for framing a scheme by any of the trustees and in fact some of the trustees who are not applicants in the said application for framing the scheme, were impleaded as proforma respondents in the application before the Deputy Charity Commissioner and none of the said respondents have objected to the framing of the scheme. He invited my attention to the relevant clauses in the old scheme and the clauses in the draft scheme submitted by the appellants before the Deputy Charity Commissioner. He submitted that the trustees desire that more and more deserving students should get the benefit of the benevolent activities of the trust.