vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7204 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.7204 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.7204 OF 2008 Kanhayalal Govinddas Gujarathi ... Petitioner V/s. Mukunddas Gowardhandas Gujrathi & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.M. Gorwadkar for Petitioner Mr.Sanjay Kshirsagar for Respondent Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 7 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: DECEMBER 5, 2008 DECEMBER 5, 2008 DECEMBER 5, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . This petition has been filed against the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner on 1.9.2008 directing opponent No.1 i.e. Respondent No.5 herein to hand over the charge of the affairs of the Trust as well as the keys of its office premises to the elected office bearers. The Joint Charity Commissioner has also directed Respondent No.5 to hand over the record and registers of the Trust to the newly elected office bearers and to submit all accounts of money received from the date of the election till the handing over of the documents and keys of the premises. The Charity Commissioner had passed a further direction permitting the applicants i.e. respondent Nos.1 to 4 who were the elected members to break open the locks and take possession of the premises, in case of failure of the : 2 : opponents i.e. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 to hand over the keys. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Charity Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass any orders with respect to the possession of the trust property in an application u/s 41A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. According to the petitioner, since he was in possession of the trust property, the other trustees could have taken possession of the premises only by filing proceedings u/s 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and not by taking recourse to an application u/s 41A. It is submitted that in view of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Jankibai Prahladrai Brijlal Seksaria v. Kashinath Raghunath Kelkar, (1970) 73 BLR 729, 1970) 73 BLR 729, 1970) 73 BLR 729, a trust can recover possession of its property only under section 50 and not in any other manner. In my view, these contentions need not be considered in the present case at all, since the order has already been executed on 15.9.2008. Admittedly, the petitioner as well as Respondent No.5 have been re-elected as trustees. They have attended meetings which have been held after the possession of the Trust office was taken over by the newly elected body. In such circumstances, there is no need to go into the niceties of law in this case. The learned advocate for the petitioner insists that the law must be : 3 : decided. The Petitioner has failed to establish that a view different from the one taken by the Joint Charity Commissioner is warranted in the present case. 3. Section 41A of the Bombay Public Trust Act empowers the Charity Commissioner to issue directions to any public trust or any person connected with it to ensure that the trust property is administered properly and the income of such property is accounted for or duly appropriated to the objects for which the Trust has been established. The Charity Commissioner has also been empowered to issue such directions to the trustees as are necessary if he finds that the Trust property is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated or wrongfully sold, removed or disposed of. The contention that section 50 of the Act is applicable to the facts in the present case is unfounded. The elections were held and a new body was elected to manage the trust. The petitioner and Respondent No.5 were re-elected. After the elections and the declarations of the new committee, the petitioner and Respondent No.5 did not hand over the charge of the Trust to the newly elected body. Therefore, an application was made u/s 41A of the Act to the Charity Commissioner. In these circumstances, all that the Charity Commissioner has done is to ensure that the Trust is administered properly, by handing over the charge to the newly elected body. When the charge of a : 4 : trust is handed over to the newly elected body, as a natural consequence the new trustees should take charge of the registers and other documents which relate to the affairs of the trust. There is no dispute that the premises from where the office of the trust is run in the present case are owned by the Trust. Therefore, in my view, these premises would also be required to be handed over to the newly elected body, concomitantly. A trustee cannot claim that he will continue in the premises although he has been directed to hand over the charge to newly elected body. 4. The submission of the learned advocate for the Petitioner that judgment in Jankibai Prahladrai Brijlal Seksaria (supra), applies to the facts in the present case, is without merit. In that case, there was a dispute as to whether the property belonged to the Trust and therefore, it was directed that such a dispute can be resolved only u/s 50 of the Act. In the present case, the petitioner does not dispute that the office of the Trust is owned by the Trust and therefore, the question of taking recourse to section 50 would not arise. The reliance placed by the learned advocate for the Petitioner on the judgment in the case of Asaram Bhimrao Shinde & Ors. v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2001(4) Mh.L.J. 549 2001(4) Mh.L.J. 549 2001(4) Mh.L.J. 549 does not further his case. The judgment only speaks about the directions which the : 5 : Charity Commissioner can issue u/s 41A of the Act. 5. The Joint Charity Commissioner has rightly directed that the registers and other documents be handed over to the newly elected body alongwith the keys of the office of the Trust so as to ensure the elected body administers the trust in a proper manner, in order to effectuate and implement the policies of the Act. 5. Petition rejected.