IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 09 of 2011 CLMA (Delay Condonation Application) No.643 of 2011 Graduate School of Business Administration (GSBA) Trust presently having its registered office at Kothi No.8, Sector 52, Noida, Delhi. Gautambudhnagar (U.P.) through its trustee, Permanent member of executive committee, Mohd. Yunus S/o Shri Mohd. Yusuf R/o Mohalla Killa Manglaur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. ………… Appellant Versus 1. Sub Divisional Magistrate/Joint Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2. Dr. P.L. Maggu S/o Late Shri K.R. Maggu, R/o Kothi No.8, Sector 52, Noida, District Gautambudhnagar (U.P.) .…...……. Respondents Present: Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Subhash Tyagi, Advocate for respondent No.2. Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, Judge Date of Decision : 15.03.2011 Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) The application for condonation of delay is not being opposed. We have considered the averments made in the application and being satisfied with the reasons furnished therein, we allow the application. Admit. By consent of the parties, we have taken up the appeal for hearing on its merit. The appellant herein Mohd. Yunus instituted a writ petition in the name of a Trust known as Graduate School of Business Administration (GSBA) Trust. The learned Single Judge held by the judgment and order under appeal that Mohd. Yunus 2 could not file a writ petition for and on behalf of the Trust. In doing so, while the learned Judge took notice of Clause 15 (f) and 15 (g) of the Trust Deed, he also took notice of the fact that by a letter dated 26th November, 2009, Mohd. Yunus has been removed as a trustee of the Trust. The learned Judge has taken notice of the fact that Mohd. Yunus has not yet taken any step to challenge the contents of the said letter. To that, there appears to be no dispute. The counsel appearing on behalf of Mohd. Yunus submitted that Clause 15 (f) dealt with matters pertaining to arbitration. It was contended that Mohd. Yunus is aggrieved because it has been held that since Mohd. Yunus was removed from the Trust, he is not a trustee and, therefore, at his behest a writ petition on behalf of the Trust is not maintainable. Apart from the fact that, in terms of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, while representing the Trust and advancing the cause of the Trust, trustees are duty bound to act collectively, the Trust Deed, in the instant case, made it absolutely clear that in the matter of institution of suits, making of claims and demands, initiating proceedings relating to the Trust, entering into settlement, making adjustment or compromise, the Trust will act only when the majority of the trustees direct the Trust to act in that direction. The claim in the instant case relating to the Trust and the proceedings therefor in terms of Clause 15 (f) of the Trust Deed could not be filed by one trustee alone. The same could only be filed on being backed by the majority decision of the Board of Trustees. We, therefore, make it clear that the writ petition, at the instance of Mohd. Yunus, was not maintainable. There is, therefore, no reason to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal. The appeal is dismissed. ( Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. ) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 15.03.2011 P. Singh 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 1066 of 2001 (Old No. 2623 of 2000) B.K. Mittal ………… Petitioner Versus The Chairman and Managing Director, Central Bank of India, Chandermukhi, Nariman Point –Mumbai and another. .…...……. Respondents Present: Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, Judge Date of Decision : 15.03.2011 Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) While posted at Darbhanga, it was detected that the petitioner is suffering from rheumatic heart disease. This detection was made in May 1982. Ultimately on 16th July, 1998, petitioner underwent open heart surgery in order to get rid of the said disease. There was twofold claim by the petitioner on account of the said disease. One was pertaining to money spent and the other on account of leave that he was forced to take. Petitioner has been paid the money established to have been actually spent by him. The learned counsel for the petitioner has informed us that little in excess of `2,50,000/- has been received. Petitioner, however, sought and still is insisting to seek medical aid of `3,96,000/-, less the money already paid. In order to arrive at the figure of `3,96,000/-, petitioner has proceeded on the basis of approximation not supported by any document. In the event such a claim is honoured, the same would be a gratuitous grant, we cannot direct grant of the same. 4 2. The other claim is to treat the leave obtained by the petitioner for the treatment as special leave, so that the petitioner continues to receive salary during the leave period beyond the permissible extent. In that connection, petitioner relies upon para 7 (d) of the Central Bank Office Circular dated 3rd December, 1979. That para deals with injury sustained in course of duty. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner did not sustain any injury. Para 7(d) of the said Circular, therefore, is of no help to the petitioner. Since there is nothing further to be done in the writ petition, the same is dismissed. ( Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. ) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 15.03.2011 P. Singh