1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1030 OF 2010 Dr.Narayanrao Govindrao Tawade and another. ..Petitioners Versus Keshavrao Sonbarao Tawade ..Respondent ... Shri V.D.Salunke, Advocate for the petitioner ... CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH,J. Dated : 10.2.2010 PER COURT :- 1. Heard. 2. Shri Salunke, learned Advocate for the petitioner points out page No.26 (Exhibit "C") i.e. the application filed by respondent to the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nanded on 25.6.2009. By this application a prayer is made to take entry in PTR No.1 of the order passed by this Court i.e. High Court in Appeal No.869 of 1979. This request made by the respondent was objected by petitioner No.2. Exhibit "D" is the copy of the objection dt.12.8.2009. Prayer made by the respondent was also objected jointly by both the petitioners by objection dt. 18.1.2010. Copy of the same is on record at page 28. 2 3. Order passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nanded ("ACC") is on record at Exhibit "C". The learned ACC has referred to sections 17, 22 and 26 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 ("Act of 1950"). In substance the ACC has recorded a finding that it is the duty of the officer working under the provisions of the Act of 1950 to take entries in the record maintained by them pertaining to the public trusts. If the officers under the Act of 1950 at their level committed the mistake of not taking such entries, he has observed that the applicant, who reminded them after the period of thirty years, cannot be blamed for that reason. His application cannot be rejected. 4. Shri Salunke, learned counsel submits that though there is no limitation provided under the said Act for taking entries in the record maintained by the officers of charity organisation, such time should be the reasonable time. The expression, "reasonable time" has its own importance which needs to be read in the context of the statute concerned. For example, if an application, appeal or revision is filed by the aggrieved person under the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, beyond the specified period provided under the said Act, in that circumstance, expression "reasonable time" needs to be taken into consideration and applied to the facts brought before the authority and/or Court. Such instance, whether can be considered when it comes to the provisions of the Act of 1950 is 3 the question to be decided and considered by this Court. (Emphasis supplied). 5. For this purpose, it is necessary to take into account the aims and objects of the Act of 1950. A "public trust" is defined under the provisions of the Act of 1950. It is a complete scheme pertaining to the registration of the trust, functioning of the trust, administration of the trust, appointment of the trustees, removal of the trustees, suspension of trustees etc. This Act of 1950 in fact, is a basis of democratic principles accepted by the Constitution of India for its governance at it's national level. The public trust registered under the provisions of the said Act also needs to be registered as a society under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 ("Act of 1860"). It is a matter of record that now a days large number of educational institutions imparting education from K.G. to P.G. level are being run by the institutions controlled by public trusts and in view of the policy of the Central and State Governments, such public trusts are getting financial aids. On the background of this changed scenario, administration of public trust has got significance and importance. 6. Turning to the submission of Shri Salunke, learned Advocate that the expression "reasonable time" should be considered for execution of the order as of three years, cannot be accepted. The simple reason is that the trustees of any public trust registered under the provisions of the Act of 1950 and Act of 1860 are supervising, spending and controlling the 4 aid received from the public exchequer contributed by the citizens at large. For this reason, reasonable time of three years which is not brought on statute book i.e. Act of 1950 by the Legislature in their wisdom, cannot be re-written by the Court and foisted upon the person having interest within the meaning of section 2(10) - various categories of the members of the public trust etc. The officer working under the charity organisation, as observed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, was under legal obligation to honour and implement the order passed by the High Court. The order passed by the high Court can only be turned down by the Honourable Supreme Court or competent fora. No authority under any statute functioning either under the control of the Central and/or State Government can turn down or ignore such an order. The order passed by the High Court thus has to be implemented by every one. In catena of decisions this Court has time and again held that that the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court is the law of the land. 7. In my view, order impugned is reasonable, legal and proper and therefore, needs to be upheld. For no reasons name of respondent can be ignored or not to be recorded in PTR. 8. In the result, Writ Petition stands dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. ( S.B.DESHMUKH, J.) ... akl