1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2969/2007 (Krushnarao Laxmanrao Wagh VERSUS The Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati & others ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Parchure, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Thakre, Assistant Government Pleader for the R-1 & 4. Mr. Saboo, counsel for the R-2. CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 12, 2008. Heard. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 07.06.2007 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati whereby the administrator appointed by the Education Officer for carrying out the administration of the trust was directed to handover the administration of the School to the trustees who are recorded in Schedule-I and apart from the other directions, the Assistant Charity Commissioner was also directed to decide the various change reports mentioned in the order preferably within a period of four months from the date of the impugned order dated 07.06.2007. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since there are groups in the trust and because of the conflict of interest, the trust was 2 not being administered properly, and therefore, there was a need felt to appoint administrator, and hence, the Education Officer appointed administrator to run the administration of the trust. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that respondent no.2 approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.5528/2005 raising the grievance regarding the order dated 16.02.2002 whereby the administrator came to be appointed under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Management) Act, 1976. The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned single Judge vide judgment dated 18.01.2007 whereby the administrator was asked to apply to the Charity Commissioner under Section 8(2) of the Act and Charity Commissioner was directed to take a decision in accordance with law. In view of the decision of the learned single Judge, respondent no. 2 approached the Joint Charity Commissioner under Section 8(2) of the Act. The Joint Charity Commissioner, passed the impugned order dated 07.06.2007 on the said application. Mr. Parchure, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that if the management is handed over to the recorded trustees in Schedule-I, there will be a chaos in the administration and the very purpose for which the administrator was appointed would be frustrated. It is, therefore, contended that the 3 impugned order may be quashed and set aside and the management of the trust be handed over to the administrator till the change reports are decided. The counsel for the respondent no.2 supported the impugned order. It is no doubt true that if there is a mismanagement by the trustees, in that event, and in the given facts and circumstances, the management of the trust needs to be handed over the the administrator for proper administration of the affairs of the trust. In the instant case, the administrator was appointed by the Education Officer way back in the year 2002 and continued to administer the affairs of the trust. In the instant case, respondent no.2 approached this Court by filing the above referred writ petition wherein the learned Single Judge vide order dated 18.01.2007 asked the administrator to apply to the Charity Commissioner under Section 8(2) of the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Management) Act, 1976. Pursuant to the said direction, the administrator made an application before the Joint Charity Commissioner, which has been disposed of by the Joint Charity Commissioner by passing impugned order whereby the above referred directions are given. One of the directions contained in the impugned order is to handover the administration of the school to the recorded 4 trustees and the other direction (Apart from other directions) is to decide the change reports within a stipulated period. It is canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application under Section 8(2) of the Act contemplates that the Charity Commissioner is required to settle a scheme of management in the interest of proper administration of the institution. In the instant case, the mandate of Section 8(2) has been ignored by the Joint Charity Commissioner, and therefore, the order is bad in law. A perusal of the order shows that the trust already has a written constitution, and therefore, if the trustees act according to the said constitution, then, in the opinion of the Joint Charity Commissioner, there is no need to settle any scheme as contemplated under Section 8(2) of the Act. If that is so, the observation, in our view, does not violate the mandate of Section 8(2). The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner, who is one of the recorded trustees in Schedule-I, was not heard before passing the impugned order by the Joint Charity Commissioner, and therefore, the order is violative of principles of natural justice. In the instant case, the circumstances in which the Joint Charity Commissioner, was moved by the 5 administrator were already referred by us in the above paragraphs of the order, and therefore, we do not want to reiterate the same. However, the fact remains that the administrator was directed to apply to the Charity Commissioner under Section 8(2) of the Act. Pursuant to the said direction, the administrator has applied to the Charity Commissioner and in these peculiar circumstances, particularly keeping in view the fact that the Joint Charity Commissioner, has given direction to the Assistant Charity Commissioner/Deputy Charity Commissioner to decide all the change reports within four months from the date of impugned order. We do not see any reason to show any indulgence in the present writ petition. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in the present writ petition, this Court passed an ad- interim order dated 10.07.2007. However, it was clarified in the order itself that direction contained in Clause 6 of the impugned order was not stayed. In that view of the matter, by now, the Assistant Charity Commissioner/Deputy Charity Commissioner must have decided the change reports. However, for some reason, if those are not decided, we grant further time of four weeks only to the Assistant Charity Commissioner/ Deputy Charity Commissioner to decide all the change reports. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the 6 writ petition disposed of. The ad-interim order stands vacated. JUDGE JUDGE APTE