1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPELLATE SIDE, CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.: 8299 OF 2009 1. Nandkumar S/o Jagannath Nalandwar, Age: 43 years, Occ.: Business, Secretary, Mathura Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Wanjarwada, Tq. Jalkot, Dist. Latur. 2.Jagannath S/o Tukaram Nalandwar, Age: 65 years, Occ.: Business, Vice President, Mathura Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Wanjarwada, Tq. Jalkot, Dist. Latur. 3. Ram S/o Jagannath Wanjarwadekar, Age: 38 years, Occu.: Business, Joint Secretary, Mathura Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Wanjarwada, Tq. Jalkot, Dist. Latur. 4. Vishakha Sunil Mandurwar, Age: 40 years, Occu.: Household, Member, Mathura Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Wanjarwada, Tq. Jalkot, Dist. Latur. 5. Swati Dattatrya Wanjarwadekar, Age: 41 years, Occu.: Household, Member Mathura Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Wanjarwada, Tq. Jalkot, Dist. Latur. 6. Kum. Reena Bhagwanrao Bongirwar, Age: 32 years, Occu.: Household, Member, Mathura Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Wanjarwada, Tq. Jalkot, Dist. Latur. 7. Seema Venkatrao Pensalwar, Age: 33 years, Occu.: Household, R/o C/o Nandkumar Jagannath Nalandwar, At Post: Wanjarwada, Tq. Jalkot, 2 District: Latur. ... PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. Shri Chandrakant Bhagwat Gudmewar, Age: 48 years, Occu.: President Mathura Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Wanjarwada, Tq. Ahmedpur, at present residing at Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. 2. Sow. Anusaya W/o Chandrakant Gudmewar, Treasurer, Mathura Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Wanjarwada, Tq. Ahmedpur, at present residing at Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. 3. The Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur Division, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur. ... RESPONDENTS *** Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. N. P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mrs. R. K. Ladda, A.G.P. for Respondent No.3. *** CORAM: S. B. DESHMUKH J. DATED:- 18th FEBRUARY, 2010. ORAL ORDER: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule, made returnable forthwith, heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. Mathura Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Wanjarwada [hereinafter referred to as the public trust, for short] is a public trust registered in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 [the said 3 Act, for short]. The present petitioners are trustees of the said public trust. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 claim to be members of the said trust. In this proceeding, I am not deciding their status as members or otherwise. Fact is not in dispute that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed an application before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur Region, Latur under section 41 (D) of the said Act. Annexure - A is copy thereof, on record. From the application, it seems that the present Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the applicants and present petitioners, in this writ petition, are Respondents. Respondent No.3 in the present Writ Petitioner is Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur Region, Latur. Application under section 41 (D) Annexure-A to the writ petition, is filed by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 with some grievances. This application is filed on 8th December, 2006. Learned counsel Mr. Patil for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 took me to the pleadings or allegations made in this application in para Nos.4, 5 and 6. It is not in dispute that the said public trust is registered on 17th January, 1996. 4 Application Annexure-A, filed under section 41 (D) was registered as Inquiry Application No. 24 of 2006 with the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur Region, Latur. The present petitioners have entered appearance, filed their reply. Annexure-B is the copy of the reply, on record. It was filed on 2nd May, 2009. After denying the allegations in the principal application under section 41 (D), present petitioners have denied the allegations and requested for rejection of the application with costs. 7. The learned JCC passed an order on 21st November, 2009 below Exhibit-A of application No.24 of 2006. Three points for determination have been framed. Mr. Salunke, counsel for the Petitioner, took me through paragraph Nos. 4, 5 and 7 of the finding. With the assistance of both the learned counsel I have read this order in its entirety. Operative part of the order is also minutely considered by me. This order is challenged in this writ petition. This order was passed on 21st November, 2009, on the same day application was moved before the learned JCC for 5 suspension and said order is suspended till 21st December, 2009. This petition was filed by the Petitioners before this Court on 26th November, 2009. This Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, issued notice returnable on 27th January, 2010 and granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C). This order is in operation till today. 8. In view of the order dated 21st November, 2009 below Exhibit-1, learned Joint Charity Commissioner has also framed two charges. Annexure-H, Page 34 is the copy of the two charges framed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner. Counsel for the Petitioner points out these two charges framed on 21st November, 2009. 9. Since interim order is under challenge, I am passing the order carefully and keeping in mind that the main proceeding, as of today, is still pending before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner to be decided on the basis of the material if any produced on record by the parties. Charge No.1, framed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner pertains to default 6 in submission of audit report during the period 31st March, 1996 to 31st March, 2007. This is a charge framed under section 41 (D) (1) (a) of the said Act. Second charge framed pertains to negligence in holding election of the managing committee and for these allegation charge is framed under section 41 (d) (1) (c) of the said Act. 10. Framing of both these charges under subsection (3) of section 41 (D) is assailed in this writ petition. Both learned counsel have addressed the Court in relation to the provisions of the said Act, Rules and material which was available before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner and which is made available before this Court also. Reply of the Respondent is also on record. Out of these two charges, in para 8 of the order, learned Joint Charity Commissioner has noticed that audit report for the period commencing from 31st March, 1996 to 31st March, 2007 have been filed by the opponent on 19th March, 2008. He has also noticed the entries in Scheduled-X of the Trust. He opined that the opponent trustees filed audit report of last 7 twelve years from the date of registration of the trust in the year 2008, during the pendency of this application. With this, he further reached to a conclusion as he has recorded at the close of the same paragraph. With this, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner passed the order framing the charge pertaining to the non-filing of the audit reports in accordance with the scheme of the Act. Petitioners are now under the charge at serial No.1 for which further hearing would take place, that is the reason, at this stage, I am restraining myself from making any observation, but, then, so far as charge No.1 is concerned, prima facie, at this stage, in my view, no case for interference under Article 226, 227 of the Constitution is made out. 11. I have also considered the submission of the counsel for the parties in relation to charge No.2. Both of them have pointed out finding of the learned Judge in the order passed. Establishment of the trust is not in dispute. Tenure of five years of the managing committee is admitted. From 1996 five years 8 roughly comes to an end somewhere in the year 2001. It is the case of the Respondent NO.1 and 2 that bogus change reports have been filed. This is not the stage and proceeding where, this Court can record any finding i.e. for the simple reason that the finality of change report of the election of 2001 has not taken place and matters are pending, In my view, on such ground, it cannot be said that the framing of charge No.2, at the hands of the learned Joint Charity Commissioner is legal and proper and in accordance with the provisions of law. Another facet, after 2001, petitioner has contended that elections have taken place in the year 2006. Change report No.501 of 2006 is pending before the appropriate authority. Suffice to note that, elections have taken place. Whether those elections are legal, illegal, this Court has no concern, at this stage. Fact remains that the elections have taken place and change reports based on those elections are pending before the competent authorities or the Court. In my view, framing of charge No.2 is perverse and requires to be quashed and set aside. 9 Learned counsel Mr. Patil relies on a judgment of learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of "Vijay K. Mehta and another V/s Charu K. Mehta and others" reported in 2008 (6) All MR 239. I have considered relevant paragraphs of this judgment. Learned Single Bench of this Court has recorded a fact that application for adjournment was made by one of the party to the proceeding and the learned Joint Charity Commissioner at Mumbai had granted some ad-interim relief, that is how the matter was before this Court. I have taken into account all the facts and judgment cited by the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 12. In view of the above, writ petition is partly allowed pertaining to charge No.2 meaning thereby charge No.2, framed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, on 21st November, 2009 below Exhibit-1 stands quashed and set aside. So far as charge No.1 is concerned, i.e. non-filing of the audit reports, I am dismissing the writ petition meaning thereby that the order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, framing 10 charge No.1 stands uphold. Authority concerned shall hear the parties and pass appropriate order in accordance with the provisions of law. 13. Rule is made absolute in above terms, without any order as to costs. 14. At this stage, learned counsel Mr. Salunke seeks suspension of this order for two weeks. Mr. Patil opposes this prayer. This order shall stand suspended till 2nd March, 2010. [S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:18/02/2010. ans/8299 11 WRIT PETITION NO.: OF 200 Date of decision: 18th FEBRUARY, 2010. For approval and signature THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S. B. DESHMUKH. . Whether Reporters of local papers ... Yes may be allowed to see the judgment? . To be referred to the Reporter or not? ... No . Whether Their Lordships wish to see ... No the fair copy of the judgment? . Whether this case involves a substantial ... No question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder? . Whether it is to be circulated to the ... No Civil Judges? . Whether the case involves an important ... No question of law and whether a copy of the judgment should be sent to Nagpur, Goa and Bombay offices? [G. F. ANSARI] PRIVATE SECRETARY TO THE HONOURABLE JUDGE