VIJAY K MEHTA Vs. CHARU K MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the parties.

(2.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Counsel for the respondents waive notice for the concerned respondents. As short question is involved, petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent. During the course of hearing the Counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that he would fully support the argument of the petitioners and would pray for transposing respondent No. 2 as petitioner.

(3.) This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgement and order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Greater Mumbai Region, Mumbai dated 23rd July, 2008 below Exhibit-1 in Application No. 17 of 2007. The principal application being No. 17/06 has been filed by respondent No. 1 for initiating action under section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the named trustees including the petitioners. The Joint Charity Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as "the J.C.C.") proceeded to pass order on 3rd June 2008 below Exhibit-1 in Application No. 17/06. The purport of the said order is to frame charges against respondent Nos. 1 to 9 in the original application, who are reportedly trustees Of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust (hereinafter referred to as "the Trust"), on the basis of material before him and after giving opportunity to the charged trustees. Besides framing charges against the said trustees (respondent Nos. 1 to 9 in the said application), the J.C.C. by the said order proceeded to issue directions against the respondents before it as also against other trustees to the effect that none of the trustees shall take any policy decision and shall enter into any financial transaction with regard to the Trust, without prior approval of the Administrators Dr. Narendra Trivedi and Hon'ble Justice Shri Halbe, till further orders". In the said order, it is noted by the J.C.C. that as charges have already been framed the same could have been made basis for suspending the trustees in terms of section 41-D(4) of the Act.