Bombay High Court
Shri.Narendra Namdev Mulik And ... vs Joint Charity Commissioner, ... on 29 October, 2021
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
32-FAST17807-21+.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 17807 OF 2021
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2799 OF 2021
Narendra Namdev Mulik & ors. ...Appellants
Versus
SANTOSH Joint Charity Commissioner & ors. ...Respondents
SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
Mr. Prashant Bhavak, for the Appellants/Applicant.
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Date: 2021.10.30
19:00:09 +0530
Mr. S. S. Patwardhan, for Respondent nos.2 and 3.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATED : 29th OCTOBER, 2021
PC:-
1. Heard Mr. Bhavke, the learned Counsel for the appellants
and Mr. Patwardhan, the learned Counsel for respondent nos.2
and 3.
2. In the backdrop of the nature of the controversy raised in
this appeal, the appeal itself can be disposed of as the order
passed by this Court in Writ Petition (St) No.2271 of 2018
squarely governs the situation.
3. The appellants, who are the petitioners in Writ Petition
No.2271 of 2018, have assailed the order dated 3rd September,
2021, passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner,
Kolhapur, in Application No.9 of 2021, restraining the applicants
32-FAST17807-21+.DOC
from managing the affairs of the trust or affairs of the school,
run by the trust in any manner whatsoever.
4. The genesis of the said proceeding is in an order passed by
respondent no.4 - Education Officer (Zilla Parishad) Kolhapur
on 29th June, 2021, on an application dated 14th June, 2021,
submitted by the appellants herein, to the effect that the
trustees whose names find mention in the latest PTR shall be
considered authorised, and entitled to manage the affiars of the
trust. Respondent no.4 purportedly drew support from a
communication dated 1st March, 2021, issued by Director of
Education, containing the guidance to the officers of the
Education Department as to the manner in which the affairs of
the schools shall be dealt with, when there are disputes among
the trustees of the trust, which manage educational
institutions.
5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it becomes
evident that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner was of the
view that respondent no.4 had no authority in law to determine
as to who is competent to manage the affairs of the trust.
6. Mr. Bhavake, the learned Counsel for the appellant, would
urge that the application before the Joint Charity
Commissioner, Kolhapur, under Section 41E of the Maharashtra
Public Trust Act, 1950, was itself not tenable for two reasons.
32-FAST17807-21+.DOC
One, the communication issued by respondent no.4 could not
have been a subject matter of the proceeding before the Joint
Charity Commissioner. Two, the requisite conditions which
empower the Joint Charity Commissioner to pass an order of
injunction, were not at all made out.
7. In the backdrop of the fact that multiple proceedings
between the parties have been decided by the authorities under
Maharashtra Public Trust Act and the second round of litigation
led to filing of Writ Petition (St) No.2271 of 2018, wherein by an
order dated 24th January, 2018, this Court directed both the
parties not to implement both the orders, namely the order
dated 16th November, 2017 and the order dated 7th May, 2016, it
would be superfluous to delve into the aforesaid submissions.
8. It would be suffice to note that in the second round of
litigation, Change Report No.1925/2009 was accepted by the
Deputy Charity Commissioner, by an order dated 7th May, 2016.
In an appeal, being Appeal No.39 of 2016, the learned Joint
Charity Commissioner was persuaded to allow the appeal and
reject the change report by judgment and order dated 16 th
November, 2017. In Writ Petition (ST) No.2271 of 2018, this
Court directed both the parties not to implement the first order
dated 7th May, 2016, passed by the Deputy Charity
Commissioner and the order in appeal dated 16 th November,
32-FAST17807-21+.DOC
2017. The position as regards the management of the affairs of
the trust is thus governed by the order dated 24 th January,
2018.
9. In the aforesaid view of the matter, respondent no.4 could
not have recorded that the persons whose name find mention in
the PTR register are the authorised trustees and, thus, entitled
to manage the affairs of the trust. From this standpoint, the
Joint Charity Commissioner cannot be said to have committed
any error. Even if the submission on behalf of the appellant as
regards the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated
3rd September, 2021, passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner,
is accepted, then also the order passed by respondent no.4
authorising the persons whose name appeared in the PT
register to manage the affairs of the trust cannot be sustained
for the simple reason that the said direction is in teeth of the
order passed by this Court on 24th January, 2018.
10. In view of the above, the appeal stands disposed of with a
direction that the communication dated 29th June, 2021, by
respondent no.4, is non-est and does not confer any authority
upon any of the parties.
11. Resultanly, the impugned order also stands set aside.
32-FAST17807-21+.DOC
12. The rights of the parties shall be governed by the interim
order dated 20th January, 2018, in Writ Petition (St)
No.2271/2018, which reads as under:
"3. The impugned order dated 7th May, 2016 of the
Assistant Charity Commissioner-I, Kolhapur has been set
aside by order dated 16th November, 2017 in Change Report
No.1925 of 2009 by the Joint Charity Commissioner. Both
the parties are directed not to implement the order dated 16 th
November, 2017 as well as order dated 7 th May, 2016, till next
date."
13. With the aforesaid clarification, the appeal stands
disposed of.
14. In view of the disposal of the appeal, stay application also
stands disposed of.
15. The application (Enquiry Application No.9 of 2021)
preferred by respondent nos.2 and 3, before the Joint Charity
Commissioner, Kolhapur, also stands disposed of.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
