1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2194 OF 2011 (Ashok Harischandraji Satpute vs. Dr. Vishnupant Balaji Kimatkar and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri S.D. Abhyankar, Advocate for the petitioner. -------- CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JUNE 15, 2011 The above petition takes exception to the order dated 15/3/2011 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner whereby the application filed by the petitioner herein invoking Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 came to be rejected. Suffice to note that the said application was filed by the petitioner on two-fold grounds, namely, that the non-applicants have not submitted the audited accounts as per rules and regulations and that the Trust property has been sold by the non- applicants without obtaining permission under 2 Section 36 of the said Act. Insofar as the first allegation is concerned, finding has been recorded by the Joint Charity Commissioner on the basis of Exh. 26/1 that accounts are submitted upto the year 2003. The Joint Charity Commissioner was also of the view that to bring home the charge under Section 41-D of the said Act, there has to be a persistent default and that an element of personal intent of the Trustees to defy the direction as contained in the law would have to be shown. The Joint Charity Commissioner was of the view that many a times, the accounts of the educational Trust are not completed within time because of the inaction on the part of the School Management in respect of the accounts relating to grant-in-aid, which is granted to the Schools run by the Trust. Hence, the Joint Charity Commissioner did not find any merit in the said allegation. Insofar as the second allegation in respect of the alleged breach committed by the non-applicant Trustees in the matter of the sale of property of the Trust, the Joint Charity Commissioner took into consideration the fact that the property in question 3 was purchased by the President Dr. Kimatkar out of his own funds as the Trust did not have any funds to purchase the property and thereafter by Resolution No.13 passed in the General Body meeting dated 30/7/1998, the Trustees decided to return back the said property to Dr. Kimatkar. The Joint Charity Commissioner also took into consideration the fact that the applicant no.1 did not know as a fact whether the Trust had the funds to purchase the said property as also the non-applicants did not produce any evidence to show that the property was purchased from the funds of the Trust. The Joint Charity Commissioner also took into consideration the fact that the subsequent sale deed was attested by the applicant no.1 to the said application. The Joint Charity Commissioner, therefore, on consideration of the aforesaid facts did not find merit in the second allegation also in the context of Section 41-D of the said Act. Having perused the impugned order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner and having considered the reasons mentioned therein, in my view, no fault can be found with the said reasons. 4 There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner requiring this Court to interfere in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE khj