1 FA-2220-16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2220 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8628 OF 2015
1. Govind s/o Baliram Mugle,
Age : 52 Years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Halgara, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist.Latur.
2. Khandu s/o Piraji Hendge,
Age : 55 Years, Occ. : Service,
R/o Halgara, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist. Latur. .. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. Govind s/o Narsingrao Kunale
Age : 50 Years, Occ. : Agril.,
R/o Borsuri, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist. Latur.
2. Rajesh s/o Shinde, Died.
3. The Assistant Charity Commissioner,
Latur, District : Latur. ..RESPONDENTS
..
Mr. A. N. Subnis, Advocate h/f Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for appellant.
Mr. Nitin Jagdale, Advocate h/f Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for
respondent No.1.
Respondent No. 2 - served.
Respondent No. 3 - served.
...
CORAM : K.K. SONAWANE, J.
RESERVED ON : 8 th AUGUST, 2017.
PRONOUNCED ON : 15th DECEMBER, 2017.
JUDGMENT :-
1. This is an first appeal filed under section 72(4) of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 (for short "Act of 1950") by the ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 02:11:22 ::: 2 FA-2220-16 appellants to agitate validity and legality of the findings expressed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Latur ( for short "ACC") in the Inquiry of change report No. 313 of 1997 under section 22 of the Act of 1950. The Principal District Judge, Latur after exercising the powers under section 72 of the Act of 1950 upset the findings of the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur (for short "JCC") in revision No. 17 of 2004 and restore the decision of learned ACC under section 22 of the Act of 1950. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Principal District Judge for restoration of status-quo ante in regard to change report No. 313 of 1997, the appellants preferred the present appeal to redress their grievance.
2. The genesis of the appeal culled out in brief is that, the present appellants were the members of Educational Institution known as "Jaihind Shikshan Sanstha," Halgara, Ta. Nilganga, District Latur ( for short '' Trust"). The institution was registered as Trust under the Act of 1950 bearing No. F-1386-Latur. The appellants were the President and Executive President of the alleged Institution/Trust prior to year 1997. But, in the General Body Meeting of the Trust held on 19-01-2017 the membership of four Office bearers/trustees including appellants came to be terminated and other four persons were inducted as new members of the Trust. The change occurred in the list of members of the Trust was reported to the learned ACC under section 22 of the Act of 1950. In order to ascertain the validity of change occurred, the learned ACC carried out the inquiry bearing No. 313 of 1997. In response to notices of inquiry the appellants appeared before learned ACC and denied the occurrence of any such change as alleged on behalf ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 02:11:22 ::: 3 FA-2220-16 of Trust. After considering submissions on behalf of both sides, the learned ACC accepted the change report and directed for requisite amendment in the scheduled-I of the Trust.
3. The appellants-opponents did not satisfy with the findings of learned ACC for acceptance of change occurred relating to membership of alleged Educational Trust. In the result, appellants - opponents approached to learned JCC under section 70(A) of the Act of 1950 for exercising revisional jurisdiction to set aside and quash impugned order of learned ACC passed under section 22 of Act of 1950. The learned JCC after hearing came across with some sort of perversity in the findings of ACC and consequently, allowed the revision application. The impugned order of learned ACC accepting alleged change in the list of members of the Trust came to be set aside and quashed. However, then verdict of learned JCC passed in the revision application was put in controversy under section 72(1) of the Act of 1950. The Principal District Judge, Latur dealt with the rival submissions and proceeded to upset the findings of learned JCC and consequently restored the findings expressed by learned ACC passed under section 22 of the Act of 1950. But, the litigation did not came to an end. The appellants rushed to this Court by resorting to remedy under section 72(4) of the Act of 1950 and preferred the present first appeal to redress their grievance about validity and legality of the impugned order of learned ACC for accepting the change occurred in the list of membership of Educational Institution in this case.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that Principal District ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 02:11:22 ::: 4 FA-2220-16 Judge, Latur did not appreciate the facts and circumstances of the matter in its proper perspective and committed error in restoration of status-quo ante by accepting impugned change report. He alleged that so-called General Body Meeting dated 19-01-1997 was not at all convened by the respondents/Trust. The documents of meetings produced on record all were fake, forged and fabricated one. According to learned counsel, after election of the Trust held in the year 1996, there were in all 26 valid members of the Trust. The appellant Govind Mugle was the President and one Rajesh Shinde was Secretary of the Trust. But, before completion of five years stipulated tenure the Secretary played the mischief and by fabricating spurious documents, the membership of appellants and others were shown terminated under the pretext of their absence in three consecutive meetings of the Trust. It was also alleged that member Suresh Role tendered his resignation which came to be accepted in the Meeting of Managing Committee dated 25-12-1996. The appellant Khandu Hendge did not deposit requisite fees for renewal of his membership and in view of rules of the Scheme of Trust, his membership came to be terminated. According to learned counsel for appellants, there was no General Body meeting of the Trust convened on 19-01-1997, but the entire documents came to be prepared and fabricated to terminate the membership of the appellants. Learned counsel harped on the circumstances that, the appellant Khandu Hendge was the life member of the Trust and as per clause (4) of the Scheme of Trust, it was not necessary for life member to pay fees for renewal of membership. The clauses No. 5 and 6 of the Scheme of Trust relating to continuous absence in three meeting were ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 02:11:22 ::: 5 FA-2220-16 for general members and not applicable to office bearers of the Trust. The appellant Govind Mugle was the Office bearer being President and therefore his membership cannot be revoked for his absence in three consecutive meeting of the Trust. Learned counsel further pointed out that as per scheme of the Trust five days clear notice of General Body Meeting of the Trust was required to be given to the appellants. But, the notice of the impugned General Body Meeting dated 19-01-1997 was served on the appellant Govind Mugle a day before meeting i.e. on 18-01-1997. Therefore, General Body Meeting dated 19-01-1997 was illegal, invalid and not as per provisions of law. The illegalities committed following non compliance of Rules and Regulations of the Scheme of Trust vitiated entire business carried out in the meeting of the Trust. The Principal District Judge, Latur did not consider all these aspects and erroneously upheld the findings of learned ACC for accepting change report in enquiry No. 313 of 1997. Therefore, learned counsel fervidly urged that the appeal be allowed and impugned judgment and order passed by Principal District Judge as well as learned ACC in enquiry No. 313 of 1997 be quashed and set aside. The findings of the learned JCC be restored and alleged change shown occurred in the membership of Trust, vide change report Inquiry No. 313 of 1997 be rebuffed and turned down in the interest of justice.
5. Mr. V.D. Salunke, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 vociferously opposed the contentions put forth on behalf of appellants and supported the findings expressed by the Principal District Judge, upholding the verdict of learned ACC in the Inquiry No. 313 of 1997. ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 02:11:22 :::
6 FA-2220-16 The learned counsel elaborately discussed the circumstance on record and submits that there is no merit in the appeal and same be dismissed.
6. Before adverting to merits of the matter, it is worth to mention that the present first appeal is filed under section 72(4) of the Act of 1950. The full Bench of this Court in the case of Prabhakar Sambhu Chaudhary and another Vs. Laxman Baban Mali and others reported in 2016(3) Bom. L.R. 714 held in paragraph No. 54 as below:
"54. In view of the reasons recorded above our answer to the questions formulated for consideration, this reference is:-
(1) Appeal provided under sub-section 72(4) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 is not subjected to the restriction and limitations imposed under the provisions of section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the scope of appeal extends to reconsideration of decision of the lower forum on questions of fact and questions of law with a jurisdiction to reverse, modify the decision or remand the matter to the lower forum for fresh decision in terms of its directions. Appeal to the High Court under sub- section (4) of section 72 of the Act of 1950 is an appeal against the decree under sub-section(2) of section 72 [The decision of Court under section 72(2)is a decree for limited purposes of maintaining an appeal to the High Court].
(2) Consequently, there is no obligation for the
::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 02:11:22 :::
7 FA-2220-16
appellant to state substantial questions of law involved in the memorandum of appeal and High Court is also not bound to formulate substantial questions of law while admitting the appeal or before posting the appeal for hearing.
. In view of aforesaid legal guidelines, there is no impediment for reappraisal of the decision of Courts below on the question of facts as well as legal issues and it would not subject to restriction and limitation as laid down under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code in regard to substantial question of law.
7. Intense scrutiny of the factual aspects as well as record and proceedings of the matter reflects that the argument canvassed on behalf of appellants appears not sustainable and considerable one. The basic objection raised in the proceeding pertains to termination of membership of one Sayed S. Saudagar, Suresh Role, the present appellants Shri Govind Mugle as well as Shri Khandu Hendge in the General Body meeting dated 19-01-1997. It is to be noted that the member Sayyed S. Saudgar did not come forward and put into controversy the issue of termination of his membership by resolution passed in General Body meeting dated 19-01-1997. The member Suresh Role tendered the resignation on 05-12-1996, which came to be accepted in the Executive Committee Meeting dated 25-12-1996. He attempted to protest the said action by filing proceeding before learned JCC, but, later-on he retreated and withdrawn the proceedings.
8. Now, the matter in issue remained for deliberation only to the extent of membership of appellants Govind Mugle and Khandu Hendge ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 02:11:22 ::: 8 FA-2220-16 in this appeal. There are two fold objections raised on behalf of appellants in support of their claim. First, objection raised on behalf of appellants was in regard to General Body Meeting dated 19-01-1997 itself. It was alleged that no such meeting was convened at all but the entire documents of the meeting came to be prepared and fabricated to suit the purpose. The another objection was pertaining to Rules and Regulations of clauses No. 4, 5 and 6 of Scheme of Trust.
9. While dealing with the first objection as referred supra, it reveals that the Office Bearers of the Trust/Institution produced entire relevant documents of the meetings before the learned ACC for consideration. The appellants were directed to take inspection of the documents maintained and preserved in the office of the Trust. But, they did not avail the opportunity nor they produced any document in support of their claim. The record adumbrates that out of 22 members of the trust, 18 members attended the General Body Meeting held on 19-01- 1997. They put their signatures on the original proceeding book of the meeting. They unanimously passed the resolution for termination of membership of the appellant Govind Mugle and one Sayed Saudaar for their absence in three consecutive meetings dated 21-07-1996, 14-09- 1996 and 25-12-1996. In such circumstances, it is fallacious to arrive at the conclusion that there was no such General Body Meeting of the Trust convened on 19-01-1997. The allegations propounded on behalf of appellants in regard to alleged forged and fabricated documents appears to be rest on figment of imagination and except bare version, there are no circumstances brought on record to point out needle of suspicion towards affairs of the Trust during relevant period. ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 02:11:22 :::
9 FA-2220-16
10. The alleged Educational Institution has its own scheme for better administration and management. The relevant clauses in regard to memberships as well as mode and manner in which meeting of the Trust to be convened, are reproduced here to facilitate for just and proper adjudication of the matter in issue on merit ;
dye ua-4 lHkklnRo %& vBjk o"kkZojhy dks.kR;kgh ukxjhdkl laLFksus Bjowu fnysyh oxZ.kh vkf.k dk;Zdkjh eaMGkus laerh fnY;kl R;k laLFksps lHkkln gksrk ;sbZy- lHkkln [kkyhy izdkjps jkgrhy-
v½ vkfto lHkkln %& laLFksus ,d osGh fdaok fru o"kkZr Bjowu fnysY;k gIR;kr ns.kxh #i;s [email protected]& ns.kkjs o R;kis{kk tkLr ns.kxh ns.kkjs loZ lHkkln gs vktho lHkkln Eg.kwu x.kys tkrhy-
c½ lk/kkj.k lHkkln %& lk/kkj.k lHkklnkauk ,dk osGh fdaok fru o"kkZr Bjowu fnysY;k gIR;kr ns.kxh #-3]551 fdaok R;kis{kk tkLr ns.kxh ns.kkjs gs loZlk/kkj.k lHkkln jkgrhy-
d½ lUekufu; lHkkln %& lUekufu; lHkkln gks.;klkBh ,dkosGh fdaok Bjowu fnysY;k gIR;kr #- 551 fdaok R;kis{kk tkLr ns.kxh ns.kkjk vls lHkkln lUekufu; lHkkln Eg.kwu x.kys tkrhy-
ojhy loZ lk/kkj.k lHkkln o lUekfu; lHkkln njo"khZ uqr.khdj.kk d#u ?ks.ks vko';d vkgs- lHkkln uqr.khdj.k Qhl #i;s iapohl ¼25½ njo"khZ Hk#u lHkkln fu;feri.ks pkyw Bso.ks- lHkklnkauh #i;s 25 o"kZ laiY;kuarj 3 efg.;kP;k vkr Hkjkos-::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 02:11:22 :::
10 FA-2220-16
dye ua- 5 lHkklnRo dsOgk j| gksbZy %&
1- ,[kknk lHkklnkus ys[kk jkthukek fnY;kl o
R;kyk dk;Zdkjh eaMGkus ekU;rk fnY;kl-
2- ,[kkn;k lHkklnkpk e`R;w >kY;kl-
3- lHkklnkus laLFksph oxZ.kh fru o"kkZis{kk tkLr
dkG dGfoY;kl
4- Hkkjrh; naM dk;|kuqlkj R;kl f'k{kk >kY;kl
5- dk;Zdkjh eaMGkus Bjko ?ksÅu R;kps lHkklnRo
j| dsY;kl
6- lHkkln lrr rhu lHkkauk xSjgtj jkghY;kl-
7- lHkklnkauk u'kkikuh d#u lHksl vokZPp
f'kfoxkG o vlH; orZu djhr vlY;kl R;kps
lHkklnRo dj.;kpk vf/kdkj dk;Zdkjh eaMGkoj
jkghy-
dye ua- 6 loZlk/kkj.k lHkk %&
loZ lHkklnkaps feGwu ,d loZlk/kkj.k lHkk
gksbZy- lHksP;k loZ lHkklnkauk ;k lHksl gtj
jkgk.;kpk vf/kdkj jkghy- laLFksP;k loZ
ekyeRrsoj ;k lHkspk gDd jkghy- laLFksps o"kZ gs 1 ,fizy rs 31 ekpZ jkghy-
'kS{kf.kd o"kZ laiY;kiklwu lgk efg.;kP;k vkr laLFksP;k loZlk/kkj.k lHksph cSBd cksykoyh ikghts-
R;klkBh dehr deh lkr fnolkph uksVhl ns.ks
vko';d vkgs-
uksVhl nsr vlrkauk rkjh[k] LFkG] osG] fo"k;]
vkf.k pkj ;kaph uksan vl.ks ca/kudkjd vkgs-
lHkklnkauh fuoM.kqdhlkBh mHks jkgko;kps
vlY;kl R;kus laLFksph iw.kZ Qhl fnysyh vlyh
ikghts- v'kk lHkklnkauk ,d lqpd o vuqeksnd
vlrk ikghts- R;kyk v/;{k] dk;kZ/;{k] lfpo]
::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 02:11:22 :::
11 FA-2220-16
milfpo] vkf.k dks"kk/;{k ;k inklkBh o lgk
lnL;kP;k fuoM.kwdhlkBh mHks jkgrk ;sbZy ofjy
izek.ks dzekdzekus fuoM.kwdk gksrhy-
loZ lk/kkj.k lHksr v'kk inkf/kdk&;kapk fuoM
dj.;kr ;sbZy- ;klkBh [email protected] lHkkln cSBdhl gtj
vlY;kl x.kiwrhZ iw.kZ >kyh vls letys tkbZy-
vlk lHksl x.kiwrhZ vl.ks vko';d jkghy- x.kiqrhZ
iw.kZ u >kY;kl lHkk v/;{kkaP;k ijokuxhus rgdwc djrk ;sbZy- v'kh rgdqc >kysyh lHkk v/;{kkaP;k ijokuxhus rkcMrksc R;kl fBdk.kh nksu rklkauh rhp lHkk ?ksryh tkbZy- v'kk lHksl x.kiwrhZph vV ykxw jkg.kkj ukgh-
dk;Zdkjh eaMGkyk vko';d okVY;kl fo'ks"k loZlk/kkj.k lHkk cksykÅ 'kdrs- fo'ks"k loZlk/kkj.k lHksph uksVhl dehr deh ikp fnol vxksnj fnyh ikghts o R;kr lHksph rkjh[k] osG fo"k; o LFkG fyg.ks ca/kudkjd jkghy- x.kiwrhZlkBh lk/kkj.k lHksph fu;e ;k lHksyk ykxw iMrhy-
11. On the backdrop of aforesaid Rules and Regulations as contemplated in the scheme of the Trust, it would be justifiable to proceed further for assessment of facts and circumstances to resolve the controversy emanated amongst the parties to litigation. The appellants raised objection that, the co-appellant Shri Khandu Hendge was the founder member of the Trust and being life member, it was not incumbent on his part to pay charges for renewal of his membership. It is to be noted that as per clause (4) of the scheme of Trust, there was only three categories of the members (1) Life Member, (2) Ordinary Member and (3) Honorary Member of the trust. There was no such category of membership known as "Founder Member". Therefore, ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 02:11:22 ::: 12 FA-2220-16 co-appellant Khandu Hendge's membership cannot be considered being founder member of the Trust. At the most he can be considered as life member, but for that purpose he has to pay Rs. 5551/- or more by way of donation as prescribed under clause (4) of the aforesaid scheme. Learned ACC in his finding expressed that co-appellant Khandu Hendge filed affidavit (Exhibit-16) on record and deposed that the person, who paid donation of Rs. 2551/- would be the ordinary member and therefore, it was not necessary for him to pay renewal charges for his membership. It was observed that he has not filed any documentary evidence in support of his claim. Admittedly, except his bare version there were no any documents produced on record to show that appellant -Khandu Hendge was the life member of the Trust.
12. Moreover, during the course of Inquiry under section 22 of the Act of 1950 the opportunity was provided by the learned ACC to the appellants for inspection of record of the Trust, but they did not avail the opportunity. In case, the appellants would have carried out inspection of the record of Trust, they would be in a position to point out some sort of legal infirmity in the record. But, the appellants failed to seize the opportunity. In such circumstances, it would be cumbersome to accept the bare version of appellant that the co- appellant Khandu Hendge was the life member of the Trust. It was not established that he had deposited the total sum of Rs. 5551/- towards donation to become life member of the Trust. When he did not deposite requisite sum of Rs. 5551/-, it would inappropriate to ask the Trust to produce such documents on record, which are not in existence at all. There is no substance found in the objections raised to the termination ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 02:11:22 ::: 13 FA-2220-16 of membership of Khandu Shendge, who has failed to deposit renewal charges of his membership of the Trust.
13. The another objection propounded on behalf of appellants is in regard to issuance of notice of Special General Body Meeting of the Trust. Admittedly, circumstances demonstrate that the appellants Govind Mugle remained absent in the General Body Meeting held on 21-07-1996 as well as in the Executive Committee Meetings dated 14- 09-1996 and 25-12-1996. It has been alleged that he was continuously remained absent in three consecutive meetings of the Trust. In view of sub-clause (6) of clause (5) of the Rules and Regulations of scheme of Trust, his membership was liable to be terminated automatically. The factum of absence of appellant Govind Mugle in the three consecutive meetings did not put in question seriously on behalf of appellants. It has been contended that provisions of Rule 5(6) of the Scheme was meant for ordinary members only and not applicable to office bearers of the Trust. The appellant Govind Mugle was one of the office bearers being President of the Trust. Therefore, Rule 5(6) of the Scheme relating to continuous absence in three meetings would not applicable to him. In view of facts and circumstances of the matter, this kind of objection appears to be preposterous and incomprehensible one. The clause 5 sub-clause (6) contemplates termination of membership in absence of the members of Trust in three consecutive meetings. It has not qualified that the members are only ordinary members and not office bearers. It is to be borne in mind that the office bearer of the Trust has to become members of the Trust first and thereafter only authority would be given to him to look after the management of Trust ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 02:11:22 ::: 14 FA-2220-16 being office bearers. Therefore, it is hard to appreciate that clause 5(6) of the Scheme of Trust would not applicable to the office bearers of the Trust. Moreover, clause 5(6) does not specifically referred its applicability to the General Body Meeting only and not to the Executive Committee Meeting. The said clause does not refer any specific kind of meeting as well as exemption for office bearers to attend the meeting. In such circumstances, the objections raised appear unsustainable and not considerable one.
14. Learned counsel for the appellants has given much more emphasis in regard to validity and legality of Special General Body Meeting held on 19-01-1997 and submits that as per clause (6) of the Scheme of the trust, the notice of Special General Body Meeting should be issued prior to minimum five days of the date of meeting. In the instant case, notice of Special General Body Meeting dated 19-01-1997 was issued on 10-01-1997 i.e. prior to nine/ten days of the date of meeting. However, it came to be served to the appellant Govind Mugle on 18-01-1997 i.e. a day before the alleged meeting. According to learned counsel for appellants, there was no five days clear notice to the appellants and there was violation of clause (6) of the scheme of the Trust, which would vitiate entire business of the Special General Body Meeting. The notice of the meeting was bad-in-law for non- compliance of the provisions of clause (6) of the Scheme of the Trust. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the ratio laid down by the learned Single Judge of Karnatka High Court in the case of Jintendra Mannulal Dubey Vs. State of Karnanatka by its Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayath ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 02:11:22 ::: 15 FA-2220-16 Raj and others reported in ILR 2002 Kar. 3216.
15. Admittedly, provisions of clause (6) of the scheme of the Trust contemplates that notice of Special General Body Meeting should be issued to every members not less than five days prior to the date of meeting. In the instant case, proposed Special General Body Meeting was scheduled to be held on 19-01-1997. The notice to appellant Govind Mugle was issued on 10-01-1997 through RPAD. However, postal acknowledgment shows that appellants received the notice on 18-01-1997 i.e. a day before the Special General Body Meeting. The question for consideration would arose as to "whether the notice issued to the appellants for their attendance in the Special General Body Meeting dated 19-01-1997 was bad-in-law as it was not in conformity with the clause (6) of the Scheme of the Trust ?" After appreciating factual score in the light of provisions laid down in the scheme, the answer to this question would obviously in negative.
16. The clause (6) of the scheme of Trust prescribed mode and manner in which Special General Body Meeting would be convened. It lays down procedure to be observed before holding Special General Body Meeting. In case of any contingency arises, the discretion was given to the Executive Committee to convene the Special General Body Meeting. Clause (6) postulates prior notice of Special General Body Meeting to be issued to every member not less than five days of the date of meeting. The object and purpose of clause (6) of the Scheme of Trust for stipulation to issue five clear days notice prior to date of Special General Body Meeting was to communicate well in advance the ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 02:11:22 ::: 16 FA-2220-16 details of the meeting comprising date of meeting, particulars of the subject, venue of the meeting etc. to the every members to make it convenient for them to attend the meeting.
17. As referred supra, the impugned notice to the appellants was issued on 10-01-1997 through RPAD i.e. prior to nine/ten days of the scheduled meeting, but it came to be served a day before the scheduled meeting. It is worth to mention that, despite service of notice, the appellants did not prefer to attend the meeting. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that impugned notice issued and served to the appellants was not in conformity with the clause (6) of the Scheme of Trust. The Judicial Pronouncement relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants in Jintendra Dubey's case referred above, do not advance to the contentions propounded on behalf of appellants in this case. The ratio laid down by learned Single Judge appears to be 'per in curiam' in nature. The learned Single Judge while interpreting Rule 3 of the Karnatka Panchayat Raj Rules 1994 gave much more emphasis on the interpretation of word "Giving" instead of word "Send" which was used in the provisions of rule 3 for stipulation of specific period for sending notice to the members. There was no reference about service of notice in the rules but there was mandate to send notice of the date so fixed to every member not less than seven days prior to the date of meeting. The rule prescribed clear gap of seven days in between the period of sending notice and the day of proposed meeting. In view of textual facts of the matter, the judicial pronouncement would not render any assistance to the appellants in this case.
::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 02:11:22 :::
17 FA-2220-16
18. In the instant case, it is imperative to give priority to the period of issuance of notice which shall not be less than five days prior to date of Special General Body Meeting. It would be absurd and illogical to give more weightage to the factum of actual service of notice on the members of the Trust. Had there been any intention of the scheme for actual service of notice not less than five clear days certainly it would specify in clear terms in the scheme. But, there is reference only about issuance of notice and not actual service of notice in clause (6) of the scheme. If there would have any mandate to take care for service of notice of meeting not less than clear five days to every member, in such eventuality, it would be tedious and tiresome job for the Trust to collect all sort of evidence showing service of notice to each and every member of the Trust. The possibility of avoiding the service of notice within stipulated period by the members of the trust with purported motivation, could not be ruled out. It may cause multiplicity of litigation and also create complication while convening Special General Body Meeting for better administration and management of the Trust. Definitely, it would not the intention of Clause (6) of scheme, but mandate is only for issuing prior notice well in advance to the members to facilitate them to attend the meeting without any inconvenience to them. Therefore, it cannot be said that period for actual service of notice to the members would be the essence of valid and legal notice as prescribed in clause (6) of the scheme. In the aftermath, it would difficult to digest the argument canvassed on behalf of appellants in this case.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it would be concluded that ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 02:11:22 ::: 18 FA-2220-16 there was no legal infirmity in the Special General Body Meeting held on 19-01-1997. The learned ACC has correctly appreciated the attending circumstances on record. The verdict of learned ACC for acceptance of change report appears just, proper and within the provision of law. The findings of learned ACC and learned Principal District Judge deserves to be made confirmed and absolute. In addition to the aforesaid circumstances, it is also imperative to take into consideration that the appellants remained absent continuously in three consecutive meetings of the Trust and as per clause 5 sub-clause (6) of the Scheme of the Trust, their membership required to be terminated automatically. Therefore, on this aspect also there is no propriety to cause any interference in the findings expressed by the learned Principal District Judge, Latur and learned Assistant Charity Commissioner in this matter.
20. In the result, for the reasons discussed above, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
21. The pending civil application is hereby disposed of.
Sd/-
[ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE MTK.
**** ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 02:11:22 :::