1 LPA. no. 229.09 & CA. 13402.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4332 OF 2009 Keshav S/o Balappa Doke and others ... Appellants V E R S U S Pandharinath S/o Sadashiv Sandore and others ... Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13402 OF 2009 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 229 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4332 OF 2009 Keshav S/o Balappa Doke and others ... Applicants V E R S U S Pandharinath S/o Sadashiv Sandore and others ... Respondents ... Mr. N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for the Appellants/Applicants. ... CORAM : S.B. DESHMUKH AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 18TH DECEMBER, 2009 PER COURT 1] We have heard learned counsel Mr. N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar for the appellants/applicants. The Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1950"), is in operation in the State of Maharashtra. This Act of 1950 extends to the whole of 2 LPA. no. 229.09 & CA. 13402.09 the State of Maharashtra. It is not in dispute that Mahatma Basweshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Kharosa, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur, is a registered public trust, registered under the Act, 1950. It is also not in dispute that this trust in question i.e. Mahatma Basweshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal (hereinafter referred to as "Mandal" for short) is registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The appellants have been given registration number of the trust as F-53. According to the appellants election of the executive committee of the Mandal was held on 7.8.2006. The term of the executive committee is of 5 years as per the constitution of the Mandal. Appellants have also contended that they are office bearers of the trust of the executive committee of the trust in question and/or Mandal. Further, it appears from the synopsis of the Letters Patent Appeal that the Writ Petition no. 4332 of 2009, was filed by the present appellants before the learned Single Bench of this Court challenging the order dated 23.6.2009 passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur in Inquiry no. 29 of 2007 under sub section 3 of section 41(D) of the Act, 1950. The Writ Petition no. 4332 of 2009 was before the learned Single Bench of this Court on 16.11.2009. Incidentally Mr. Patil learned counsel appearing for the appellants points out that one more Writ Petition i.e. Writ Petition no. 4606 of 2009 was filed by other members of the executive committee of the Mandal concerned challenging the order of the appointment of the administrator and the said writ petition was also before the learned Single Bench of this Court. Mr. Patil learned counsel appearing for the appellants however, makes it clear that the present appellants/ applicants are challenging the 3 LPA. no. 229.09 & CA. 13402.09 order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition no. 4332 of 2009 dated 16.11.2009. By this order, the learned Single Bench of this Court had issued Rule, heard the parties to the Petition, finally disposed of the Writ Petition allowing it in part. The order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner dated 23.6.2009 below exhibit 25 in Inquiry Application no.29 of 2007 is quashed and set aside. Direction is given to the parties to appear before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur on 30.11.2009 and further directed the disposal of the matter by the said authority i.e. Inquiry Application no. 29 of 2007 within a period of three months from 16.11.2009. 2] Learned Single Bench of this Court has imposed some conditions which are enumerated in paragraph (iv) of the order. It is this order passed by the leaned Single Bench of this Court dated 16.11.2009 challenged in this Letters Patent Appeal by the appellants. 3] Mr. Patil learned counsel for the appellants, points out few provisions of the Act, 1950. According to him, section 41(A) empowers the Commissioner to issue directions for proper administration of the trust. He also points out one more provision i.e. section 41(E) of the Act, 1950 which empowers the Charity Commissioner to act for protection of the charities. According to him, aggrieved parties can move the authority concerned under section 41(A) or 41(E) either for proper administration of the trust or for protection of the charities. He therefore, submits that Act, 1950 has made appropriate remedies available 4 LPA. no. 229.09 & CA. 13402.09 to the aggrieved person. Mr. Patil learned counsel for the appellants submits that the limitations imposed on by the learned Single Bench embodied in paragraph (iv) of the order, are unjustified. He further submits that even these restrictions were not sought by the contesting respondents before the learned Single Bench, neither application was filed before the Joint Charity Commissioner for that purpose. With the assistance of Mr. Patil counsel appearing for the appellants/applicants, we have noticed that two restrictions have been imposed in paragraph no.(iv) of the order passed by the learned Single Bench. Learned Single Bench, has restricted the exercise of powers of the present appellants and other members of the executive committee. Restriction imposed in paragraph no.(iv)(1) reads as under:- "The petitioners shall not take any decision pertaining to financial matter or a major policy decision without prior approval of the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Latur." Restriction no.(2) imposed upon by the learned Single Bench of this Court, on the appellants including the members of the executive committee is that they shall not make appointment, transfer and dismissal of an employee without obtaining prior permission of the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Latur. 4] As we have referred to in the forgoing part of the order, that the appellants are aggrieved by these two restrictions imposed by the learned Single Bench, Mr. Patil for the appellants submits that the order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and 5 LPA. no. 229.09 & CA. 13402.09 therefore, Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable. According to him, the order impugned being illegal i.e. passed by the learned Single Bench needs to be quashed and set aside. 5] We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel Mr. Patil and the provisions in the statute. Trusts which are being established in view of the Act, 1950 and the Societies Registration Act, 1860 within the territory of the State of Maharashtra, are imparting education right from the primary level, upto post-graduation and in some cases, such trusts are also running colleges imparting education in professional courses, degree, diploma courses etc. In-fighting amongst the members of the executive committee/board of trustees/executive committee, by whatever name such controlling body is called in the constitution of the trust in question, are not un-known either to the authorities working under the Act, 1950 or to this Court. This in-fight amongst the members of the trust many a times impacts adversely to the student community and/or upto some extent the employees working in the trust and ultimately, the trust in question and at the end, the Society at large. In view of the various statutory provisions, aid is being given by the State Government for some schools or colleges in accordance with the statutory provisions and the policy of the State Government. 6] We have read the order passed by learned Single Bench of this Court. Filing of a Writ Petition and mentioning the Article by the petitioners before the High Court, cannot be a decisive factor to say that 6 LPA. no. 229.09 & CA. 13402.09 the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners is either under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Act of 1950 has created various authorities in charity organization like Charity Commissioner, Joint Charity Commissioner, Deputy Charity Commissioner, Assistant Charity Commissioner and so on. Article 227 of the Constitution of India empowers the High Court to exercise powers of superintendence over all the Courts and tribunals functioning under the jurisdiction of the High Court. In our opinion order passed by the learned Single Bench in the case on hand, is an order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On merits also we have considered the order passed by learned Single Bench. We are of the opinion that present appellants/applicants have no case. The application under section 41(D) has been directed to be disposed of within a period of three months from 16.11.2009. On our enquiry, Mr. Patil learned counsel for the appellants/applicants submits that on 30.11.2009, the appellants did appear before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner. At this stage, Mr. Patil learned counsel for the appellants submits that three months period directed by the learned Single Bench of this Court, is short span of time and virtually one month's time has already been lapsed as of today. 7] Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed in limine. However, we clarify that learned Joint Charity Commissioner, if necessary, may apply for extension of time by detailing the reasons as co-operation and non co-operation extended by a particular party and in that circumstances such request shall be considered by 7 LPA. no. 229.09 & CA. 13402.09 learned Single Bench of this Court in accordance with the provisions of law. Letters Patent Appeal and Application stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), (S.B. DESHMUKH), JUDGE JUDGE arp