Bombay High Court
S Manjeet Singh Jagan Singh vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 11 August, 2021
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge, S. G. Mehare
1 946-WP.7578-20+1.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
946 WRIT PETITION NO.7578 OF 2020
S MANJEET SINGH JAGAN SINGH AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Ganesh Gadhe.
AGP for Respondent/s-State : Mr. S. B. Yawalkar.
Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. Mahesh K Bhosale.
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7720 OF 2020
SARDAR GURUCHARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. R. S. Deshmukh (Senior
Advocate) i/b Mr. D. R. Deshmukh.
AGP for Respondent/s-State : Mr. S. B. Yawalkar.
Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. R. B. Bagal.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, AND
S. G. MEHARE, JJ.
DATE : 11.08.2021
PER COURT :-
1. In both these petitions, the petitioners seek to challenge
the order dated 28.10.2020, passed below Exh.1, in Inquiry
No.806. Nobody has challenged the order passed in Inquiry
2 946-WP.7578-20+1.odt
Nos.44 of 2019 and 114 of 2019.
2. We have considered the submissions of Mr. Deshmukh,
the learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioners in Writ
Petition No.7720 of 2020 and Mr. Gadhe, the learned advocate
on behalf of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.7578 of 2020.
We have also considered the views of the learned AGP and the
learned advocate representing the other respondents.
3. After we had gone through the impugned order, we
called upon the learned Senior Advocate and the learned
advocates for the respective parties to appraise us as to
whether the order questioned before us, is an 'order' passed by
the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner in a pending
Change Report inquiry proceeding or in any such proceeding,
which is pending on it's file. The learned advocates for the
respective sides have stated that the Hon'ble Apex Court had
directed the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner to comply
with the directions set out in paragraph No.32 of the judgment
delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 20.08.2020 in Civil
Appeal No.2964 of 2020 with 2966 of 2020 and 2965 of 2020.
3 946-WP.7578-20+1.odt
4. We find it apposite to reproduce paragraph No.32 of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 20.08.2020 here
under :
"32. We accordingly dispose of the appeals by affirming the
conclusion of the High Court that the notification issued by the
State Government on 21 June 2019 was contrary to the
provisions of Section 6(1)(viii) of the Nanded Act 1956. We
direct that :
(i) Inquiry Application No.44 of 2019 and Inquiry Application
No.114 of 2019 pending before the Assistant Charity
Commissioner, Nanded shall be concluded and disposed of
in accordance with law within a period of three months
from the date of this judgment.
(ii) The statutory authority to make a nomination under
Section 6(1)(viii) is entrusted to the Sachkhand Hazuri
Khalsa Diwan, Nanded. The Diwan signifies the entire
body of members, as explained in the text of the
judgment.
(iii) The process of making the nomination under the
provisions of Section 6(1)(viii), as explained above, shall
be initiated and completed within a period of three
months from the date of this judgment. The Assistant
Charity Commissioner, Nanded shall fix a date for the
meeting of the Diwan and shall act as an observer at the
meeting convened for finalising the nominations. The
Assistant Charity Commissioner is entrusted with the
authority to determine the members borne on the role of
members of the Diwan who are entitled to vote at the
ensuing meeting in accordance with the above directions.
The Assistant Charity Commissioner is at liberty to adopt
4 946-WP.7578-20+1.odt
appropriate modalities for holding a meeting, including by
way of a virtual meeting in view of the outbreak of Covid-
19; and
(iv) If any further directions of a consequential nature are
necessary to implement this judgment, the Assistant
Charity Commissioner will be at liberty to move the
Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court for
directions."
5. The learned advocates for the respective parties are
united in submitting that the order dated 28.10.2020, assailed
in this petition, is in deference to the direction of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Clause (iii) below paragraph No.32 reproduced
above. The said order is, therefore, by way of compliance of
the said direction.
6. We find from the record that there was no such pending
proceeding before the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner
registered as Inquiry No.806. The learned Assistant Charity
Commissioner, upon noticing the direction under clause (iii)
reproduced above, found it appropriate to number the said
proceeding as Inquiry No.806. This inquiry is not in
connection with any pending change report inquiry registered
on the file of the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner. We
do find that the Hon'ble Apex Court has, in Clause (iv) below
5 946-WP.7578-20+1.odt
paragraph No.32 reproduced above, permitted the learned
Assistant Charity Commissioner to move the Aurangabad
Bench of the Bombay High Court for directions, if any further
directions of a consequential nature were necessary to be
issued so as to implement the directions of the Hon'ble Apex
Court. It is a matter of record that the learned Assistant
Charity Commissioner has not approached us under Clause (iv)
for seeking any assistance or directions. His order dated
28.10.2020, is actually not a judicial or a quasi-judicial order.
It is purely in the nature of a compliance upon having
implemented the direction under Clause (iii) which required
the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner to embark upon
the process of making the nominations under Section 6(1)(viii)
of the Nanded Act, 1956.
7. In the above backdrop, we put a specific question to all
the learned advocates for the respective parties, as to whether
the impugned order can be said to be an order passed by the
Assistant Charity Commissioner under any provision of the
Maharashtra Public Trust Act. Mr. Gadhe, the learned advocate
submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court has already taken care of
the trust by issuing necessary directions below paragraph
6 946-WP.7578-20+1.odt
No.32 which can be said to be in the interest of the proper
administration of the trust and, therefore, it can also be said to
be directions issued under Section 41-A. The learned Senior
Advocate submits that no doubt the Hon'ble Apex Court has
taken care of the trust vide it's direction under Clause (iii)
below paragraph No.32 which is clearly in the interest of
preparing of the list of nominations under Section 6(i)(viii) of
the Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Sachkhand Shri Hazur
Apchalnagar Sahib Act, 1956.
8. The learned AGP and the learned advocates representing
the respondents submit that the order which is impugned in
both these petitions, is actually not an order passed by the
learned Assistant Charity Commissioner in any pending
proceeding or under Section 41-A of the Maharashtra Public
Trust Act. It is purely the minutes of the compliance that the
learned Assistant Charity Commissioner has done in deference
to the directions below Clause (iii) under paragraph No.32.
9. In view of the above, we do not find that this Court can
exercise it's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India in this case. The learned Assistant Charity
7 946-WP.7578-20+1.odt
Commissioner, while complying with the directions issued by
the Hon'ble Apex Court, has recorded the manner in which he
has complied with the said directions.
10. As such, considering the fact that none of the petitioners
before us have invoked Section 41-A of the Maharashtra Public
Trust Act, inasmuch as, we find that the learned Assistant
Charity Commissioner has taken steps as he deemed fit and
proper in compliance of / deference to the directions under
Clause (iii) below paragraph No.32. The learned advocates for
the parties submit that they would approach the Hon'ble Apex
Court to bring to it's notice that it's direction under paragraph
32 Clause (iii) has not been properly implemented.
11. In view of the above, both these petitions are disposed
off. Needless to state, the ad-interim order passed earlier
stands vacated.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
...
vmk/-
