1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Civil Application No.91 Of 2010 In Writ Petition No.2197 Of 2009 * S.K. Solomon Age 66 years, Occupation: Service, The Chairman, Marathi Mission, having its office at Fortune Towers Shop No.8, 337, Sir J.J. Road, Byculla, Mumbai 400 008. .. Applicant (Intervenor) Versus 1) Prashant S/o Marcus Gaikwad Age Major, Occupation: Service, R/o 58/1, New Mukundnagar, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar. 2) The State of Maharashtra Through its Department of Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. 3) The Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division, Pune. 2 4) Marathi Mission Trust, Through its Secretary, Deodhan S/o Govind Bhambal, R/o Nagpada Neighbourhood House, Sofia Zuber Marg, Opp. Nagpada Police Station, Nagpada, Mumbai – 68. 5) P.D. Kamble, Age 52 years, Occupation: Service, R/o Principal Quarters, Union Training College of Education, Hatapure, Ahmednagar. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate holding for Shri. R.L. Kute, Advocate for the applicant. Shri. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri. V.H. Dighe, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Shri. R.J. Godbole, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Order reserved on : 09th JULY 2010 Order pronounced on : 23rd JULY 2010. 3 ORDER : (Per Naresh H Patil, J.) : 1) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2) This civil application is filed for recalling / modifying the order passed by the Court on 16th November 2009. The applicant is S.K. Solomon, who is respondent No.5 in the proceedings of Writ Petition No.2197 of 2007. By an order dated 16th November 2009 the Court directed the State Government and the Director of Education to appoint Administrator / Administrative Board of Government Officers to manage the affairs of the Trust and the institutions until further orders. By an order dated 25th February 2010 the Division Bench (Coram: A.M. Khanwilkar and S.S. 4 Shinde, JJ) admitted the petition and granted liberty to apply for expedited hearing. 3) The learned counsel Shri. R.N. Dhorde appearing for the review petitioner submitted that Mr. Deodhan Govind Bhambal, who was made party as Secretary of the Marathi Mission Trust, respondent No.3 to the petition, was involved in so many criminal cases and financial mismanagement of the Trust property. His conduct is objectionable and he has been acting against the interest of the Trust. At present Mr. Bhambal is in jail. He had even sold the properties of the Trust and criminal cases are lodged against him at many places. 5 4) The counsel further submitted in absence of there being prayer made by the petitioner, this Court had directed for appointment of Administrator which order itself is unreasonable and illegal. Many change reports under the Bombay Public Trusts Act are pending before the Charity Commissioner authorities and it would decide finally as to who are authorized persons to govern and manage the Trust. 5) The learned counsel submits that Writ Petition No.2591 of 2010 was filed by Marathi Mission Trust through its President Shri. S.K. Solomon. 6) The learned counsel Shri. Dhorde submitted that, in the light of Section 12 of the Maharashtra Educational Institutes 6 (Management) Act 1976, Provisions of said Act shall not apply to any educational instituted established or administered by minority, whether religion or language. In the light of the said Act, the Court lacks jurisdiction to pass order appointing administrator. 7) The learned counsel Shri. S.S. Jadhavar, appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2197 of 2009 submitted that, Pradeep Kamble and the review petitioner Shri. S.K. Solomon had filed intervention applications which came to be allowed. They filed detail replies before this Court. They were heard before passing order under review. The order was passed in the interest of the administration and the Trust which runs various institutions and 7 has large property. The counsel submits that under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227, this Court is empowered in the light of the peculiar facts of the case to pass an order appointing Administrator until further orders. The counsel submitted that after the Administrator has started functioning there has been no litigation between the employees and the management and the schools and the administration of the Trust is smoothly running. The counsel had no objection for issuing direction to the Charity Commissioner for deciding as to rightful claim of the persons to run affairs of the Trust. The counsel submits that the petitioners being employees has nothing to say in respect of inter se disputes between the members of the Trust. 8 8) The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that in the best interest of the Trust appointment of the Administrator was needed and there is no necessity for issuing further notice to the review petitioner and other members before implementation of the order passed by this Court on 16th November 2009. 9) From the material placed on record we find that the administration of the Trust was run detrimental to the interests of the standards of education. By way of review petition and through the writ petition whatever material is placed on record demonstrates that the way the Trust was administered was highly objectionable. This Court at this stage is not deciding as to who is responsible for the same or 9 who has rightful claim to manage the Trust. 10) In case the review petitioner and the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2591 Of 2010 claim that, being a minority institution certain rights and privileges are to be enjoyed by the Trust then we find that the same could not be to the detriment of the educational interests and the object for which the schools were permitted to run. This Court cannot be oblivious of this and the circumstances and facts brought before it. 11) The order of appointment of Administrator passed would continue until further orders as already explained in the order. The Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 25th February 2010, after 10 hearing the parties, observed that arguable questions are raised therefore writ petition was admitted and hearing was expedited. 12) We observe that the Deputy Director of Education would certainly supervise the functioning of the Government Officers who have been appointed as Administrator and call for quarterly reports from them in respect of functioning of the institutions. We therefore do not find that the review petitioner has made out a ground for reviewing the order passed by this Court on 16th November 2009. 13) The review application stands rejected. Sd/- Sd/- (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ ca.91.10