1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 71 OF 2006 Dinkar s/o Ramdas Borse, age: 62 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Kachare, Post Nagaon (Bk), Taluka Amalner, District Jalgaon. Appellant Versus Dr.Narayan s/o Rajaram Patil, age: 61 years, Occ: Agri., R/o Nagaon Gadkhamb, at present R/o Amalner, Taluka Amalner, District Jalgaon, New Address: Sane Guruji Housing Society, Plot No.5/A, Opposite- Indira Gandhi Vidyalaya, Amalner, Taluka Amalner, District Jalgaon. Respondent Mr.R.M.Deshmukh, advocate for the appellant. Mr.R.M.Pardeshi, advocate holding for Mr.S.V.Gangapurwala, advocate for Respondent. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 29th July, 2009. ORAL ORDER: 1 Appellant was the member of Suyog Shikshan Mandal, a Trust registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act. The Managing Committee of the Trust, by adopting a Resolution in its meetings held on 06.07.1997 and 05.08.1997, resolved to remove the appellant from the membership of Trust as well as from the post of 2 Secretary of Managing Committee of the Trust. The Change Report, to that effect, was submitted to the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The Assistant Charity Commissioner approved the change by his order dated 11.10.2000. 2 An appeal was carried by the appellant to the Charity Commissioner, which was heard and disposed of by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nasik Region, Nasik, who was pleased to allow the same and directed quashment of the order passed by Assistant Charity Commissioner. A Petition was presented to the District Court by Respondents raising exception to the order passed by Joint Charity Commissioner. The II Additional District Judge, Jalgaon, who heard the application, was pleased to allow same. The appellant is raising exception to the order passed by II Additional District Judge, Jalgaon, whereby petition presented by Respondent was allowed. 3 The only point agitated is that as per the provisions of Clause 26(7) of the Constitution, it is the general body which is authorized to approve removal of a member of the Trust and the Managing Committee has no authority to approve or adopt a resolution in that regard. 4 I have perused the order passed by Assistant Charity Commissioner accepting the Change Report tendered by the Respondent. It transpires that the Trust consists of only six members and they have signed the minutes of meeting in respect of removal of membership of the appellant. Except six persons, there are no other members of the Trust. In this view of the matter, there is sufficient 3 compliance of the provisions of Clause 26 (7) of the constitution. 5 Apart from this, the Assistant Charity Commissioner is also authorized, in view of provisions of Section 41D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act to take action in respect of removal of a trustee. Considering the fact that all the six members of the Trust, except appellant herein, have approved the Resolution in respect of removal of appellant from membership of Trust, objection raised by the appellant, in fact, does not survive. There is sufficient compliance of provisions of clause 26(7) of the constitution. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the Second Appeal. 6 Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. In view of this, pending Civil Applications do not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/sa7106