1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRITPETITION No. 4623 OF 2009 Mrs.Charu K. Mehta ... Petitioner v/s Chetan P. Mehta & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Dinesh Purandare a/w Mr.Raj Patel & Mr.Rohan Kelkar i/by Thakore Jariwala & Co. for the petitioner. Mr.C.U.Singh a/w Mr.Prateek Seksaria, Mr.Manish Desai, Mr.D.K.Singh, Mr.Jay Kansara & Mr.Thomas T.K. i/by Paras Kuhad & Associates for the respondent No.1. Mr.R.M.Patne, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 24TH JUNE, 2009 P.C. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed on 23.4.2009 by the Joint Charity Commissioner dismissing her application in which she had prayed that the application filed by the respondent No.1 against her 2 under Section 41D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 should be dismissed. 2. The respondent No.1 has filed an application being Application No.15 of 2008 before the Charity Commissioner under Section 41D of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, for suspension/removal of the petitioner as a trustee of the Trust known as the Lilavati Medical Trust. After being served with that application, the petitioner filed an application before the Joint Charity Commissioner for dismissal of the Application No.15 of 2008 on various grounds. These grounds inter-alia were that, she was facing the same charges for the period from 2001 to 2006 in applications filed by the other trustees, as well as in the suo-moto enquiry instituted by the Joint Charity Commissioner. Another contention raised by the petitioner was that there is no material on record to show that she was party to the transactions or deeds of the trustees which allegedly amount to misfeasance. 3. The Joint Charity Commissioner after hearing parties, has rejected the application. The Joint Charity Commissioner was of the view that the petitioner would get an opportunity to explain her 3 stand at a later stage and a bare statement in her application denying her responsibility was not sufficient to dismiss the proceedings under Section 41D. It was further held that all contentions of the petitioner would be considered when the charge is framed. Apart from this, the Joint Charity Commissioner held that all the proceedings which are pending against the trustees would be taken together but would not be clubbed. He has also observed that, it would be possible to read the evidence in one application led in another application. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that, by rejecting the application, the petitioner would be facing double jeopardy of having to defend the same charges in several different applications filed by different persons under Section 41D, as well as in the suo-moto enquiry initiated against all the trustees by the Joint Charity Commissioner. It is submitted that, if the petitioner is required to face these charges, her stand in the application filed by her for the removal of certain other trustees would get compromised. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that all the applications should be heard together to avoid any prejudice to the petitioner. 4 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that there is no error in the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner requiring this Court to interfere under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. He points out that the application filed for rejection or dismissal of the Application No.15 of 2008 filed by the respondent, was premature and, therefore, the Joint Charity Commissioner has rightly dismissed the same. 6. In my opinion, the petitioner has filed the application before the Joint Charity Commissioner for dismissal of the Application No.15 of 2008 prematurely and has invited observations against herself for doing so. It would have been appropriate for her to await till the charges are framed rather than filing an application at this stage for dismissal of the Application No.15 of 2008. 7. In these circumstances, the Joint Charity Commissioner can treat the application for dismissal filed by the petitioner as her reply to the application filed by the respondent. The petitioner may also file any additional reply to the application under Section 41D. The Joint Charity Commissioner 5 will consider whether charges should be framed against the petitioner after taking into account her reply to the application under Section 41D. While doing so, the Joint Charity Commissioner will naturally take into consideration whether by framing of a particular charge the petitioner would have to face the same charge in some other application or is in fact facing that charge in another application. After framing of the charges, it would always be open for the petitioner to challenge the same, if so advised. It may be possible that the Joint Charity Commissioner would not frame charges in respect of the instances regarding which the petitioner is already facing charges in other applications filed under Section 41D. Therefore, it would be premature to direct the Joint Charity Commissioner not to frame such charges. 8. Apart from this, whether to club all proceedings together, is for the Joint Charity Commissioner to decide after hearing the parties and after framing the charges. However, while framing the charges, if any, against the petitioner in Application No.15 of 2008, the Joint Charity Commissioner will not be influenced by the observations made in the order dated 23.4.2009 which is impugned in this petition. 6 9. In these circumstances, the petition is rejected. .....