0906cp70.10.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO.70 OF 2010 IN F.A.NO.222,279 AND 280 OF 1998. Balwant Nanaji Uplenchwar and anr. ..vs.. Purushottam Ghawade and ors. ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr. A.C.Dharmadhikari Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.R.L.Khapre, Adv. for respondents 1 to 10. Mr.V.R.Chaudhari, Adv. for respondent no.4. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 9th June, 2011. 1. The petitioners claim to be trustees of the Trust known as ‘Kelapur Education Society’. The above Contempt Petition is filed by them alleging contempt of the order dated 30th July, 2009 passed in a group of First Appeals amongst which were First Appeal Nos.222 of 1998 and 279 of 1998. The said appeals were disposed by judgment and order dated 30th July, 2009 and the said judgment and order was further clarified by order dated 22nd September, 2009. 2. The genesis of the said First Appeals lay in the two change report proceedings being Change Report No.102 of 1991 and 187 of 1992. By the said change reports, the change that took place after the elections in which the respondents were appointed as trustees in the meetings held on 20/3/1990, 10/3/1991 and 31/5/1992 respectively was reported under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 to the Assistant Charity 0906cp70.10.odt 2 Commissioner. After following the gamut of the statutory remedies provided under the Bombay Public Trust Act, the proceedings ultimately reached this court by way of the above First Appeals which came to be disposed of by the judgment and order dated 30th July, 2009. By the said order, this court remanded the matter back for a de novo hearing of the charge reports. However, in view of the fact that the petitioners herein were of the view that some clarification was required to be made in the said judgment and order, the petitioners moved an application for clarification in which an order came to be passed on 22/9/2009 by a learned Single Judge of this court C.L.Pangarkar, J. (as his Lordship then was). In the said order, it was clarified that the orders passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and the Joint Charity Commissioner in respect of Change Report Nos.102 of 1991 and 187 of 1992 were also set aside. 3. The gravamen of the allegation of the petitioners is that inspite of the orders being set aside and the matter being remanded back to the Assistant Charity Commissioner for a de novo consideration of the two change reports, the respondents herein are posing themselves as trustees and conducting the affairs of the Trust, in as much as, the respondents are appointing the teachers and also taking other policy decisions. It is the case of the petitioners that once the order was set aside, the respondents herein could not act as trustees and it was for them to move the Charity Commissioner under Section 41A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act to manage the affairs of the Trust. 4. Shri Khapre, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, drew my attention to the judgment of the Apex court reported in 1993 (Supp.4) SCC 26 in the matter of Managing 0906cp70.10.odt 3 Committee, Khalsa Middle School ..vs.. Mohinder Kaur in support of his contention that there is no requirement in law that unless change report is accepted, the respondents cannot assume office and function as trustees. The learned counsel further drew my attention to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this court A.M.Khanwilkar, J. in the matter of Chembur Trombay Education Society and ors. ..vs.. D.K.Marathe and ors., reported in 2002(3) Bom.C.R.161 wherein the proposition that the change can take place in respect of the management of the Trust only after the change report submitted under Section 22 of the Act is approved by the concerned authority was not found to be tenable and the said contention came to be rejected. It has been held that Section 22 only provides that the change is to be notified to the authority within three months and that the same would take effect from the date of the resolution and not from its approval. The learned Single Judge in that case relied upon the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Managing Committee, Khalsa ..vs.. Mohinder Kaur (supra). In the teeth of the proposition of law laid down on an interpretation of Section 22 of the said Act, in my view the case of the petitioners that the respondents herein, in view of the setting aside of the said orders by this court in the above mentioned two First Appeals, as trustees cannot be accepted as the respondents claim to be elected in the elections held in the meetings held on the dates mentioned herein above. No doubt, the legality and the validity of the said meetings are a subject matter of challenge before the Assistant Charity Commissioner in the said Change Report proceedings and undoubtedly the said issue would have to be addressed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner in the said proceedings on its own merits and in accordance with law. However, in the interregnum there cannot be a vacuum so far as the administration of the Trust is concerned, as in terms of the law laid down by the Apex court and by 0906cp70.10.odt 4 this court in Chembur Trombay Education Society’s case (Supra), the respondents would be entitled to enter office as trustees. However, their continuation as such would be contingent upon the decision of the said change report proceedings and the subsequent changes that have taken place thereafter. In my view, therefore, no case for invocation of the contempt jurisdiction is made out. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed. 5. However, considering the fact that the Society in question manages, educational institutions, it is necessary that the change report proceedings in question are decided at the earliest so as to leave no room for doubt as regards who is in the management of the Trust. The concerned Assistant Charity Commissioner though not a party to the above contempt petition is therefore directed to hear and decide the said change report proceedings being Nos.102 of 1991 and 187 of 1992 as expeditiously as possible and not later than 31st October, 2011. Both the learned Counsel Mr.A.C.Dharmadhikari and Mr.R.L.Khapre agree that their respective clients would cooperate in the early disposal of the said change report proceedings. JUDGE chute