Bombay High Court
Jaipal S/O Pundlik Wanve vs In Charge Assistant Charity ... on 9 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:8894
1 1-fa-1085-218-wp-1909-1193.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NOS. 1085/2012 & 218/2013
WITH
WRIT PETITION NOS. 1909/2021 & 1193/2021
FIRST APPEAL NO. 218 OF 2013
Jaipal Pundlik Wanve,
Aged about 44 years,
Occ. Business & Cultivator,
R/o. Samarth Nagar, Murmadi (Lakhani),
Tq. Lakhani, District Bhandara . . . APPELLANT
// V E R S U S //
1. Kashiram Lingaji Madavi,
R/o. Murmadi (Sawari), Post+Tah.
Lakhani, Dist. Bhandara
(Name of R. No. 1 is deleted as per R(J)
order dt. 10/6/14.
2. Gopichand Ratiramji Maraskolhe
R/o. Khapa (Khurd), Post Alesur
(Piteshwar), Tah. Tumsar, Dist. Bhandara
3. Dr. Ramkrishna Natthu Shinde,
R/o. West Samarth Nagar, Murmadi,
Tah. Lakhani, District Bhandara.
4. Khushal Natthuji Motghare,
R/o. West Samarth Nagar, Murmadi
Tah. Lakhani, District Bhandara
5. Dr. Umesh Narayan Taram,
At Post+ Tah. Deori, District Gondia.
6. Madhukar Hanumant Bhadikar,
Gandhi Nagar, Amravati.
7. Shivaji Natthuji Dhurve,
R/o. + Post Miregaon, Tah. Lakhani,
District Bhandara.
2 1-fa-1085-218-wp-1909-1193.odt
8. Joint Charity Commissioner,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur
(deleted) . . . RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A. Z. Jibhkate, Advocate for appellant.
Shri Prashant Gode, Advocate for respondent nos. 2, 5 & 7.
Shri S. D. Abhyankar, Advocate for respondent no. 4.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1085 OF 2012
1. Gopichand S/o. Ratiramji Maraskolhe,
Aged 60 yrs, Occ. Private,
R/o. Khapa Khurd, Post Lendezari,
Tah. Tumsar, Distt. Bhadara.
2. Ku. Jayashri Raghunathji Maraskolhe,
Aged 39 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/o. West Samarth Nagar, In front of
Samarth Mahavidyalaya, Lakhani,
Tah. Lakhani, Dist. Bhandara. . . . APPELLANTS
// V E R S U S //
1. Kashiram S/o. Lingaji Madavi,
Aged 82 yrs, Occ. Private,
R/o. Murmadi, Post Lakhani,
Tah. Lakhani, Distt. Bhandara.
2. Madhukar S/o. Hanumantrao Bhadikar,
Aged Major, Occ. Private,
R/o. Near Gurdwara, Gandhinagar,
Amravati, Tah. & Dist. Amravati.
3. Khushal S/o. Natthuji Motghare,
Aged Major, Occ. Private,
R/o. Samarth Nagar, Lakhani,
Tah. Lakhani, Dist. Bhandra.
4. Dr. Umesh Narayan Taram,
Aged Major, Occ. Private, R/o. At-Post
Deori, Tah. Deori, Dist. Gondia.
3 1-fa-1085-218-wp-1909-1193.odt
5. Ankush S/o. Bhagwat Sarve,
Aged 48 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Bhayyaji Nagar, Khat Road,
Bhandara, Tah. & Dist. Bhandara.
6. Ramkrushna S/o. Natthuji Shinde,
Aged Major, Occ. Private,
R/o. Samarth Nagar, Lakhani.
7. Shri Shivaji Nathuji Dhurve,
R/o. Miregao, Post Pimpalgaon,
Tah. Lakhani, Dist. Bhandara. . . . RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Prashant Gode, Advocate for appellants.
Shri A. Z. Jibhkate, Advocate for respondent no. 1/Caveator.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1193 OF 2021
1. Shri Jaipal s/o Pundlik Wanwe,
Aged 55 yrs, Occupation Retired,
R/o At and Post Murmadi, Tahsil Lakhani,
District Bhandara.
2. Sou. Jaya W/o Jaipal Wanwe,
Aged major. Occ: Private,
R/o Murmadi, Tahsil Lakhani,
District Bhandara.
3. Shri Duryodhan S/o Baliram Sayyam,
Aged major, Occ: Private,
R/o Khairy, Post Minsi, Tahsil Paoni,
District Bhandara.
4. Shri Dnyaneshwar S/o Mahadeo Neware,
Aged adult, Occ: Private,
R/o Paschima Smarth Nagar, Murmadi,
Tahsil Lakhani, District Bhandara.
4 1-fa-1085-218-wp-1909-1193.odt
5. Shri Ghanashyam S/o Atmaram
Waghmare, Aged adult, Occ: Private,
At and post Lakhori, Tahsil Lakhani,
District Bhandara.
6. Sau. Rajeshree Raju Murkure,
Aged adult, Occ: Private,
R/o Borgoan, Post Ahela,
Tah. & District Bhandara.
7. Shri Prakash S/o Gajnan Dolas,
Aged adult, Occ: Private,
R/o At and Post Gondumari,
Tahsil Sakoli, District Bhandara.
8. Shri Ramesh S/o Wasudeo Maske,
Aged adult, Occ: Private,
At & post Lakhani, District Bhandara.
9. Smt. Urmila W/o Tarachand Kathane,
Aged adult, Occ: Private,
R/o Garada, post Kesalwada,
Tahsil Lakhani, District Bhandara . . . PETITIONERS
// V E R S U S //
1. Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur
2. Assistant Charity Commissioner,
Bhandara
3. Shri. Shivaji S/o Natthuji Dhurve,
Aged 80 yrs, Occ: Service,
R/o Paschim Samarth Nagar, Murmadi,
Tahsil Lakhani, Distt. Bhandara.
4. Shri Madhukar S/o Hanumantrao
Bhadikar, Aged about 75 yrs,
Occ: Retired, R/o Gandhi Nagar,
Amaravati, Tehsil & District Amaravati.
5 1-fa-1085-218-wp-1909-1193.odt
5. Ku. Jayashree D/o Raghunathji
Maraskolhe, Aged 47 yrs, Occ: Service,
R/o Pachshim Samarth Nagar,
Murmadi, Lakhani Tahsil Lakhani,
District Bhandara.
6. Khushal Natthuji Motghare,
Aged Major, Occ. Retired,
R/o. Lakhni, Taluka Lakhni,
Dist. Bhandara.
(Amendment carried out as per courts
order dtd. 12.10.22) . . .RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A. M. Ghare, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri S. B. Bissa, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Ms. Dipali Kolhe, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 5.
Mr. S. D. Abhyankar, Advocate for respondent nos. 4 and 6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 1909 OF 2021
Jaipal S/o. Pundalik Wanve,
Aged about 52 years, Occ. Secretary,
R/o. Samarth Nagar, Murmadi,
Tah. Lakhani, Dist. Bhandra. . . . PETITIONER
// V E R S U S //
1. In charge Assistant Charity Commissioner,
Bhandara.
2. Jayshree D/o. Raghunathji Maraskolhe,
Aged about 49 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. West Samarth Nagar, Murmadi,
Tq. Lakhani, Dist. Bhandara.
3. Khushal Nathuji Motghare,
Aged Major, Occ. Retired,
R/o. Lakhani, Taluka Lakhni,
Dist. Bhandara.
(Amendment carried out as per courts
order dtd. 12.10.22) . . .RESPONDENTS
6 1-fa-1085-218-wp-1909-1193.odt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A. M. Ghare, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri S. B. Bissa, AGP for respondent no. 1.
Shri Prashant Gode, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
Mr. S. D. Abhyankar, Advocate for respondent no. 3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- M. W. CHANDWANI, J.
RESERVED ON :- 18.08.2025
PRONOUNCED ON :- 09.09.2025
JUDGMENT :
-
. Heard.
2. The dispute in both the Appeals and both the Writ
Petitions is in respect of a common Trust and considering the questions
raised in these two First Appeals and two Writ Petitions, these are
being decided analogously by this common judgment.
3. Bhartiya Adiwasi Shiv Shikshan Sanstha, Garada, a
registered Public Trust under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public
Trust Act, 1950 (for short, "the Act of 1950") as well as the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 was established by seven founder members. Out
of the seven Trustees, only two were surviving i.e. Kashiram Madavi
and Gopichand Maraskolhe on the date of passing of the order under
Section 47 of the Act of 1950 by the learned Joint Charity
7 1-fa-1085-218-wp-1909-1193.odt
Commissioner, Nagpur. Persons having interest in the Trust filed
applications for being appointed as Trustees before the Joint Charity
Commissioner, Nagpur asking him to exercise his powers under
Section 47 of the Act of 1950 on the premise that the numbers of
Trustees were insufficient to run the administration of the Trust
smoothly. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur by
entertaining the applications, issued a public notice in Lokmat Daily
Newspaper calling upon persons having interest in the Trust to submit
their application for being appointed as Trustees. In response to the
public notice, many aspirants filed applications claiming themselves to
be either members of the Trust or persons having interest in the Trust.
The learned Joint Charity Commissioner after considering their record,
by order dated 12.10.2012 appointed seven persons as Trustees of the
Trust with certain conditions. The Trustees consist of Kashiram Madavi
and Gopichand Maraskolhe, the founder members; One Shivaji
Dhurve who was already a member of the Trust; and the remaining
four Trustees were the persons having interest in the Trust.
4. The said order of the learned Joint Charity Commissioner
has been challenged by Jaipal Wanve by filing First Appeal No.
218/2013 as well as by his rival group Gopichand Maraskolhe and
others by filing First Appeal No. 1085/2012 on the ground that their
candidature has not been considered and some of the persons who
8 1-fa-1085-218-wp-1909-1193.odt
were not fit for the post of Trustee have been selected by the learned
Joint Charity Commissioner.
5. It is the case of the appellant in First Appeal No. 218/2013
i.e. Jaipal Wanve that since the trust was facing problems on account of
ongoing litigation created after the judgment passed under Section 47,
he along with his associate members appointed an Election Officer and
conducted elections of the Managing Committee amongst the list of
members. Consequently, elections were held and Change Report No.
38/2014 came to be filed on 13.03.2014.
6. On the other hand, Kashiram Madavi along with the
Trustees who were selected by the order of the learned Joint Charity
Commissioner have also filed Change Report No. 670/2012 claiming
that, as per the directions of the learned Joint Charity Commissioner in
his order under Section 47 of the Act of 1950, they conducted the
elections of the officer bearers of the Trust and accordingly, claimed
change in Schedule-I.
7. One more important fact required to be stated is that,
after the order under Section 47 of the Act of 1950, an application was
moved under Section 50A of the Act of 1950 for framing the scheme of
appointment of the First Board of Trustees which was allowed by the
9 1-fa-1085-218-wp-1909-1193.odt
Assistant Charity Commissioner. That order was challenged in Appeal
before the District Judge, Bhandara which came to be allowed and the
order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner was set aside. Thereafter,
it was not carried further.
8. Reverting to Change Report Nos. 670/2012 filed by
respondent nos.1 to 7 in First Appeal No. 218/2013 and 38/2014 filed
by Jaipal Wanve, initially Change Report No. 670/2012 was rejected
and in Appeal before the Joint Charity Commissioner, the matter was
remanded to the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Bhandara.
Thereafter, the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner allowed
Change Report No. 38/2014 by order dated 16.02.2017, which was
carried in Appeal before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner. The
learned Joint Charity Commissioner stayed the order of the learned
Assistant Charity Commissioner. The order of stay was carried in two
Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 5487/2018 and 7516/2018. This Court set
aside the stay order of the learned Joint Charity Commissioner and
directed him to decide the proceedings pending before him by
disposing of both the Writ Petitions. This Court directed that pending
the proceedings, the Trustees mentioned in Change Report No.
38/2014 will continue. Ultimately, the learned Joint Charity
Commissioner by order dated 13.10.2022 allowed the Appeal as well
as the Revision and set aside the order of the learned Assistant Charity
10 1-fa-1085-218-wp-1909-1193.odt
Commissioner whereby, Change Report No. 38/2014 was rejected.
Against rejection of Change Report No. 38/2014, the learned Joint
Charity Commissioner in Appeal as well as in Revision, Writ Petition
No. 1193/2021 came to be filed by Jaipal Wanve.
9. It is to be noted that, after the learned Joint Charity
Commissioner allowed the appeal as well as the Revision, names of the
Trustees mentioned in Change Report No. 38/2014, came to be
deleted from Schedule-I by order dated 30.03.2021 and that has been
challenged in Writ Petition No. 1909/2021.
10. It will be convenient to first deal with First Appeal Nos.
1085/2012 and 218/2013.
11. Mr. Gode, learned counsel for the appellants in First
Appeal No. 1085/2012 has contended that, though appellant no. 2 had
applied before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur for being
appointed as Trustee of the Trust, but her application was not
considered. Appellant no. 2 is a woman and she has a good reputation
and experience in managing the Trust. She used to attend all the
meetings of the Executive Body. No Trustee from the female category
has been appointed on the Trust. On the other hand, respondent nos.
1, 2, 3 and 6 are not eligible to be appointed as Trustees of the Trust.
11 1-fa-1085-218-wp-1909-1193.odt
Respondent no. 1 is an old aged person, whereas there were
allegations of misappropriation of the Trust fund on respondent no. 2.
Respondent no. 3 is an employee of the Trust and the By-laws of the
Society do not permit an employee to be the Member of the Managing
Committee. Apart from that, the son of respondent no. 3 is working as
Assistant Teacher in one of the junior colleges of the Trust.
Respondent no. 6 does not possess a B.A.M.S. degree as claimed by
him. Hence, their candidature should not have been considered by the
Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur.
12. It is a matter of record that respondent no. 1 is one of the
original Trustees and he continued in the Management since the
beginning of the Trust. Merely because respondent no. 1 was old, that
cannot be a ground to reject his candidature or for not considering him
as Trustee of the Trust. Be that as it may, the fact remains that
respondent no. 1 died on 10.06.2014 during the pendency of the
appeal.
13. So far as respondent no. 2 is concerned, the Joint Charity
Commissioner, Nagpur considered the educational qualification of
respondent no. 2 which is equivalent to a Master's degree in
Engineering. He retired from the post of Superintendent Engineer at
M.S.E.B. and was the Chairman of the Law Committee of Amravati
12 1-fa-1085-218-wp-1909-1193.odt
Corporation. He was also a Member of the Local Committee and
looked after the administration of the Adiwasi Ashramshala, Palasapur,
Tah. Achalpur, Dist. Amravati, a boarding school run by the Trust.
Indisputably, the allegations which are made against respondent no. 2
cannot be taken as a concrete proof of his involvement in the
misappropriation of the Trust fund. Therefore, the Joint Charity
Commissioner rightly dispelled the grounds raised by the appellant.
14. Respondent no. 3, evidently received 'Ideal Teacher' award
from the Government of Maharashtra in the year 1996-97 and has
retired as Headmaster. Therefore, the Joint Charity Commissioner has
rightly opined that his experience and educational qualification will be
helpful for the betterment of the Trust and its institutions.
15. Respondent no. 6 has acted as an Advisor to the Trust and
is connected with the Trust since the last 35 years. He is also a
respectable person having worked as a Special Executive Magistrate for
20 years from 1978 to 1998 as well as Secretary of the Human Rights
Commission. Therefore, no fault can be seen with the selection of
respondent no. 6 by the Joint Charity Commissioner.
16. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant that respondent no. 3 was an employee of the Trust and he
13 1-fa-1085-218-wp-1909-1193.odt
cannot be appointed as Trustee is concerned, the By-laws prohibit
selection of an employee of the Trust and not an ex-employee.
Needless to mention that, the husband of appellant no. 2 is an existing
employee, who is working as Headmaster of one of the schools of the
Trust. Therefore, the Joint Charity Commissioner has rightly discarded
her candidature in wake of the fact that the wife of an employee of the
Trust may not be a proper choice as it may result in conflicts.
Therefore, no interference is required in the impugned order of the
Joint Charity Commissioner.
17. Turning to First Appeal No. 218/2013, in this appeal also
the appellant is working as Hostel Superintendent of Bhartiya Adiwasi
Shiv Shikhan Sanstha, Garada, one of the schools of the Trust and is
also acting as the Administrator of the hostel of Rani Durgawati
Vastigruha, Garada. No doubt, these two hostels have been attached to
another Trust namely Bapurao Madavi Multipurpose Education Society
temporarily due to an ongoing dispute in the Managing Committee of
the Trust. The attachment of these two hostels with another Trust has
been done temporarily and therefore, the appellant cannot claim that
he is not an employee of the Trust. Perhaps, he may be receiving
salary from the very Trust. Therefore, his candidature has rightly been
discarded by the the Joint Charity Commissioner.
14 1-fa-1085-218-wp-1909-1193.odt
18. So far as the submission that respondent nos. 5 and 7
should not have been appointed as Trustees for the reason that they
did not demonstrate their contribution to protect the interest of the
Trust is concerned; the record shows that the Joint Charity
Commissioner has considered the candidature of respondent no. 5 as
he belongs to Adiwasi community and is a resident of Bhandara
District where various institutions are being run by the Trust as well as
his medical background to appoint him as a Trustee of the Trust.
Whereas, respondent no. 7 was a Trustee of the Trust for quite some
time and worked as Secretary of the Trust. However, he resigned as he
had joined service at a school run by the Trust. Now, he has retired
and therefore, there is no embargo on appointing him as a Trustee of
the Trust; more particularly, when he is connected with the Trust and
has experience with regard to the affairs of the Trust.
19. No fault can be seen in the selection of respondent nos. 5
and 7 as Trustees of the Trust. The Joint Charity Commissioner has
rightly considered the candidature of each respondent and has
accepted each candidature while appointing the Trustees and has
rightly rejected the candidature of appellant no. 2 in First Appeal No.
1085/2022 and appellant in First Appeal No. 218/2013 by giving
elaborate reasons. Therefore, the appeals are devoid of merits.
15 1-fa-1085-218-wp-1909-1193.odt
20. This takes me to the events which occurred post selection
of Trustees by the Joint Charity Commissioner under Section 47(5) of
the Act of 1950. As stated earlier, the group led by petitioner- Jaipal
Wanve in Writ Petition No. 1193/2021 conducted a meeting and
passed a resolution to conduct the elections. Consequently, the
elections were held. Jaipal Wanve was elected as Secretary and Change
Report No. 38/2014 came to be filed. Whereas, the Trustees selected
by the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner also claimed that they
conducted elections of the office bearers of the Trust and filed a
Change Report before the Joint Charity Commissioner. Thus, both the
groups are claiming that they conducted the elections and accordingly,
filed the Change Reports. Ultimately, Change Report in Revision No.
144/2017 and Appeal No. 216/2018 and 81/2017 filed by the
respondents was allowed and Change Report No. 38/2014 came to be
rejected.
21. It is a matter of record that as of 17.10.2013, except
Gopichand Maraskolhe all the Trustees were dead and neither General
Secretary nor Secretary was available. As per the By-laws of the Trust,
it is only the General Secretary who can issue notice and in his
absence, the Secretary can issue notice. In the year 2013, no General
Secretary of the Trust was available and except Gopichand Maraskolhe,
all other Trustees died. Axiomatically, Jaipal Wanve who claims to
16 1-fa-1085-218-wp-1909-1193.odt
be a Member of the Society could not have issued a notice for calling
the meeting on 17.10.2013. Therefore, notice issued by petitioner no.
1 for holding elections in order to form a new Managing Committee is
not a valid notice. The Joint Charity Commissioner has rightly held
that appointment of the Election Officer in the said meeting is totally
illegal and the elections conducted by him are also illegal. The Joint
Charity Commissioner has further rightly observed that, if at all
petitioner- Jaipal Wanve had interest in the Trust, he ought to have
moved under Section 41A of the Act of 1950 before the Competent
Authority with one interested person to decide as to how and when the
elections are to be conducted. Therefore, the Joint Charity
Commissioner has rightly rejected Change Report No. 38/2014 based
on the elections held on the basis of the meeting which was not
convened legally. Hence, no interference is required in these findings
of the Joint Charity Commissioner.
22. So far as the ground that the respondents did not become
Trustees as they had not paid the subscription fees as per the directions
of the Charity Commissioner contained in order dated 12.10.2012 is
concerned, Change Report No. 670/2012 is not a subject matter of the
present Appeals or Writ Petitions. Needless to mention that, the
Charity Commissioner by order dated 12.10.2012 has already held that
the respondents are having interest in the Trust. Even if it is accepted
17 1-fa-1085-218-wp-1909-1193.odt
that they are not Trustees of the Trust due to non-payment of the
subscription fees, the appeal filed by them before Jt. Charity
Commissioner against acceptance of Change Report No. 38/2014 is
still maintainable.
23. This takes me to Writ Petition No.1909 of 2021 which has
been filed by Jaipal Wanve and others whose names were appearing in
Schedule-I on the record of the Assistant Charity Commissioner,
Bhandara complaining about the removal of their names from
Schedule-I in respect of the trust on the premise that, this Court by
order dated 27.10.2020 in Writ Petition No.1193 of 2021 directed that
the body of the petitioners shall continue to operate during pendency
of the present petitions. However, the Assistant Charity Commissioner,
Bhandara ignoring the order dated 27.10.2020 passed in Writ Petition
No.1193/2021 removed the names of the petitioners from Schedule-I
which is a contemptuous act. Therefore, the petitioners seek setting
aside of the order dated 30.03.2021 passed by the Assistant Charity
Commissioner, Bhandara in Misc. Civil Application No.25 of 2022. For
the sake of convenience, the order dated 27.10.2020 passed by this
Court in Writ Petition No.1193 of 2021 is reproduced as under :
"Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and
the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was
proper.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
18 1-fa-1085-218-wp-1909-1193.odt
3. It is submitted that by the impugned order, the respondent
No.1 has allowed an appeal, which was not even maintainable.
Apart from this, contentions are raised on merits and it is
submitted that there were interim orders operating in favour of
the body, which has been incharge of the trust in question since
the year 2017.
4. Issue notice for final disposal, returnable in six weeks.
5. In the meanwhile, the body holding charge of the aforesaid
trust since the year 2017, shall continue to operate during the
pendecy of the present writ petition. It is made clear that since the
term of elected body appears to be over, this Court will consider
issuing directions for holding of immediate election in the said
trust under the supervision of an independent authority."
24. Perusal of the order dated 27.10.2020 reveals that by the
said order, having made an interim arrangement, the petitioners' body
holding charge of the above-mentioned Trust was allowed to continue
its operation during the pendency of the writ petitions. Thus, the
effect and operation of the order passed by the learned Joint Charity
Commissioner in Revision Application No. 144 of 2017 and Appeal
Nos. 216 of 2018 and 81 of 2017 rejecting Change Report No. 38/2014
and allowing the petitioners to continue to operate the Trust is one
thing and removal of the petitioners' names from Schedule-I of the
Trust in consequence of the order passed by the learned Joint Charity
Commissioner dated 13.10.2020 is another. Thus, there is no
substance in the arguments of Mr. Ghare, learned counsel for the
petitioners that the Assistant Charity Commissioner has violated the
order dated 27.10.2020 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1193
of 2021. Therefore, the deletion of the names of the petitioners by the
19 1-fa-1085-218-wp-1909-1193.odt
Assistant Charity Commissioner in consequence of the rejection of
Change Report No. 38/2014, whereby the names of the present
petitioners were incorporated in Schedule-I of the said Trust and the
common judgment passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner in
Revision Application No. 144 of 2017 and Appeal Nos. 216 of 2018
and 81 of 2017 cannot be faulted with.
25. Consequently, the Appeals and the Writ Petitions are
devoid of merits and hence, they are dismissed.
(M. W. CHANDWANI, J.)
26. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners in
both the Writ Petitions submits that by way of interim relief, this Court
has allowed the petitioners to hold charge of the aforesaid Trust and
the said order continued to operate during the pendency of the Writ
Petitions. Therefore, this arrangement shall further be extended for a
period of three weeks, since the petitioners want to get this judgment
and order tested before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
27. The prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the
respondents on the ground that the petitioners have not approached
this Court with clean hands. Rather, they held another election and the
20 1-fa-1085-218-wp-1909-1193.odt
Change Report has been filed inspite of the fact that the earlier election
is under challenge.
28. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents
and considering the fact that the body of the Trust is operating and
holding charge of the aforesaid Trust since 2017, the interim order
shall continue to remain in force for a further period of three weeks
from today.
29. It is made clear that the body shall only work as a
caretaker of the Trust and shall not take any policy decisions including
appointment of any employee in the Trust during the said period.
(M. W. CHANDWANI, J.)
RR Jaiswal
Signed by: Mr. Rajnesh Jaiswal
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 10/09/2025 12:20:52
