1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. FIRST APPEAL NO.736 OF 2009 Kashiram Lingaji Madavi and ors. .vs. Gopichand Ratiramji Maraskolhe and ors. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Ordersdirections and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram: C.L.PANGARKAR,J. Dated : 23rd JULY, 2009. 1. Heard Mr.A.J.Jibhkate, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.S.V.Manohar, learned counsel for respondents no.1, Mr.P.Gode, learned counsel for respondent no.2, Mr.R.L.Khapre, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and Mr.S.P.Bhandarkar, learned counsel for the Intervenor. 2. This appeal is preferred against the 2 order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner in an enquiry No.4 of 2009. One Gopichand – respondent no.1 applied under Section 47 read with 42-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act and made a prayer that the Ad hoc Board of Trustees be appointed for the trust known as “Bhartiya Adivasi Shiv Shikshan Sanstha, Garada. When application came up before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, three proposals were submitted to the Joint Charity Commissioner for suggesting the names of the persons to be appointed as Ad hoc trustees. One such list was provided by Gopichand himself, second list was provided by the appellant Kashiram and third list was provided by Purushottam – respondent no.4. 3. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner, however, appointed respondent no.1 Gopichand, respondent no.4 Purushottam and Jaishree and Headmaster of Adivasi Shiv Vidyalaya at Garada as Ad hoc trustees. The appellant feels aggrieved by such appointment. 3 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits before me that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has in fact appointed all Ad hoc trustees, who belonged to the same family and are closely related to each other. He submits that the learned Joint Charity Commissioner should have taken into consideration the names of those persons which were provided by Kashiram and Purushottam also besides the names provided by Gopichand. He submits that instead of choosing the persons from these three lists, the Joint Charity Commissioner has chosen the names which were not included in either of the lists. 5. After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents, it is apparent that ultimately the arrangement that is made by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner is an Ad hoc arrangement. However, I find substance in the contention of Mr.Jibhakate, learned counsel for the appellant, that since Ad hoc trustee No.5 happens to be the husband of Ad hoc trustee no.4, Ad hoc trustee no.5 should be 4 replaced. That would be in the interest of the trust and in the circumstances I find that the order otherwise calls for no interference and order is modified only to the extent that instead of Ad hoc trustee no.5 as named by the Joint Charity Commissioner the Headmaster of Adivasi Seva Kunj Krushnaji Ashramshala, Secondary, Jambli shall be substituted in place of Headmaster of Adivasi Shiv Vidyalaya at Dava, Tq.Sadak Arjuni, Distt.Gondia. 6. The Ad hoc body shall not exercise the powers with regard to the transfer, termination and appointment of teachers or any employee of the school nor shall they take any major financial decision in the matter. Such arrangement shall continue until the change reports are decided by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The Assistant Charity Commissioner is also hereby directed to dispose of the change report Enquiry No.1325 of 2006 and 1337 of 2006 within period of four months. If at all any contingency with regard to the financial matter arises, the same may be placed 5 before the Joint Charity Commissioner, who shall pass necessary order in the matter. With these directions, appeal is disposed off. JUDGE. chute