Bombay High Court
Padmakar Uddhav Nagrare vs Asst. Charity Commissioner & Anor on 14 June, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp409.08.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.409/2008
PETITIONER : Shri Padmakar s/o Uddhav Nagrare
Aged about 65 years, Occ. Retd.
R/o Sister Colony, Naginabag, Chandrapur.
Prabhakar Vithobaji Meshram
r/o Jatpura Ward Chandrapur.
(Amendment carried out as per Court's
order, dated 14.6.2017)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. Asst. Charity Commissioner,
Chandrapur.
2. Shri Arun s/o Gokulji Ghotekar,
Alleged President of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Memorial Society, Chandrapur, Civil Line,
Chandrapur (M.S.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.A. Gode, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs. H.N. Prabhu, AGP for respondent no.1
Shri C.R. Sharma, Adv. h/f Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Adv. for respondent no.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATE : 14.06.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the
Assistant Charity Commissioner, Chandrapur dated 16.10.2006 granting
approval to the appointment of two teachers, made by the respondent
no.2 on 21.1.2006.
wp409.08.odt
Three change reports were filed before the Assistant Charity
Commissioner by the trustees of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Memorial
Society, Chandrapur of which the respondent no.2 is alleged to be the
President some time in the years 2002 and 2003. The change reports
pertained to the removal of Members, induction of Members and the
election of the trustees. All the three change reports were allowed by the
Assistant Charity Commissioner and the order of the Assistant Charity
Commissioner was challenged by the rival group to which the petitioner
belongs before the Joint Charity Commissioner. The Joint Charity
Commissioner by the order dated 21.10.2004 set aside the election and
remanded the issue pertaining to membership for a fresh decision by the
Assistant Charity Commissioner. The group to which the respondent no.2
belongs, challenged the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner before
the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge set aside the
election and held that the present petitioner's removal was illegal. The
orders of the learned District Judge were challenged by the group to
which the respondent no.2 belongs in three separate second appeals. The
second appeals are admitted and are pending before this Court. In the
said second appeals, certain interim orders were passed and the
respondent no.2 was restrained from making any appointment in the
school without the prior permission of the Assistant Charity
wp409.08.odt
Commissioner. Even before the said order was passed on 10.4.2006, on
the basis of an order of status quo dated 30.12.2005 in Second Appeal
No.667/2005, the respondent no.2 had made the appointment of two
teachers on 21.1.2006. When the proposal of the two teachers were sent
to the University for grant of approval, the University refused to grant
approval till the second appeals were decided or till an appropriate order
was passed in the appeals. In pursuance of the order dated 10.4.2006
prohibiting the respondent no.2 from making appointment without
permission, the respondent no.2 approached the Assistant Charity
Commissioner for grant of post facto permission for appointment of the
two teachers, that were appointed on 21.1.2006. The Assistant Charity
Commissioner allowed the application by the impugned order, dated
16.10.2006. The petitioner has challenged the said order in the instant
petition.
Shri Gode, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the Assistant Charity Commissioner was not justified in allowing the
application filed by the respondent no.2. It is submitted that the present
petitioner was not made a party to the said application. It is submitted
that the communication of the University refusing to grant approval to the
appointment of the two teachers was concealed by the petitioner while
seeking the permission from the Assistant Charity Commissioner for
wp409.08.odt
appointment of the teachers. It is submitted that though the learned
District Judge has set aside the election, the respondent no.2 had illegally
proceeded to appoint the teachers on 21.1.2006.
On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the
respondent no.2 that though by filing this writ petition, the petitioner is in
effect seeking to set aside the orders of appointment of two teachers, they
are not joined as parties to this petition. It is submitted that in Second
Appeal No.667/2005 an order of status quo was passed and since at the
relevant time, the group to which the respondent no.2 belongs was
managing the affairs of the Trust, the appointment of the two teachers
were made on 21.1.2006, as it was very much necessary to do so. It is
submitted that since the appointments were already made and the
University was not granting approval till an appropriate order permitting
the appointments was passed, the respondent no.2 approached the
Assistant Charity Commissioner for grant of permission to the
appointment of the two teachers, that were appointed on 21.1.2006. It is
submitted that the teachers have been working in the school run by the
Management for nearly 12 years and this Court may not interfere with the
impugned order in the circumstances of the case.
Mrs. Prabhu, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
supported the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner and sought for
wp409.08.odt
the dismissal of the writ petition.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears
that it would not be proper to set aside the order of the Assistant Charity
Commissioner after more than 11 years from the date on which the
permission was granted to the respondent no.2 for the appointment of
teachers. The two teachers have been working in the school run by the
Trust for nearly 12 years and their services are also confirmed. The
approval is granted to the appointment of these teachers long back and it
would not be proper in the interest of justice to interfere with the
appointments that were made more than 11 years earlier. We find that
though the learned District Judge had passed an order in favour of the
group to which the petitioner belongs, the said order was challenged in a
second appeal and in the second appeal, an order of status quo was
passed on 30.12.2005. In this writ petition, we are not inclined to decide
as to who was actually running and administering the Trust as on
21.1.2006 as that issue could be decided in the second appeals that are
pending in this Court. Be that as it may, we do not find that it was not
necessary for the respondent no.2 to bring the communication issued by
the University to the notice of the Assistant Charity Commissioner while
seeking permission for appointment of the two teachers. The said
document was not relevant for deciding the question whether the
wp409.08.odt
permission could be granted or not. In any case, in exercise of the writ
jurisdiction, we are not inclined to interfere with the order so as to affect
the appointment of the two teachers who are not joined as parties to this
writ petition.
In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no
order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
