1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2009 WITH PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.40 OF 2007 Devendra Prakash Shah & Ors. .. Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents WITH ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.1864 OF 2007 Seth Vadilal Sarabhai Derasarji & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents WITH ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.1780 OF 2007 Mahuva Yuvak Samaj & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents 2 Mr.P.B.Shah with Ms.Smita Mane for the petitioner in PIL No.40 of 2007 Mr.K.P.M. Nair with Mr.Ashok Varma for the petitioners in W.P. No.1864 of 2007 Mr.D.A. Sakhalkar i/b Mr.A.R. Mishra for the petitioners in W.P. No.1780 of 2007 Mr.V.A.Gangal, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Ashok T. Gade and Mr.Vindu P. Pandey for respondent no.2 Mr.K.R. Belosay, A Panel Counsel with Mr.A.I.Patel, A.G.P. for the respondent / ‘ ’ State (A.S.Matter) Mr.Pradeep Jadhav, A.G.P. for the respondent / State (O.S.Matters) CORAM : J. N. PATEL & Smt.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, JJ DATE : 25TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. Mr.Belosay, the learned Special Counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra sought leave to permit the Principal Secretary and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai to address this court. Mr.Gilani, the Principal Secretary and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Law and Judiciary Department states that any decision which influences the voters is covered by the code of conduct and is not to be implemented. The 3 subject matter of this petition has no concern with implementation of any decision which would influence the voters in the assembly. The subject matter pertains to the amount lying in deposit with the Charity Commissioner running into Rs.247 Crores which are not spent since the last 7 years. Many elections have taken place since then. The affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya does not even whisper that the code of conduct is an impediment in the State in issuing directions to the Charity Commissioner to utilize the funds collected under section 58 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1951. Therefore, this submission on the part of the State as well as the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Charity Commissioner does not find favour with this court. The sum total of the expenses which are approved are enumerated in para 6 of the affidavit, the total does not go more than Rs.8 crores, compared to the funds which are lying in deposit in the office of the Charity Commissioner. In para 7 of the affidavit, what has been stated is in respect of the future projection for which the funds would be required. Unless this is implemented, the immediate requirement of the funds do not arise at all. This only shows the apathy on the part of the State Government in implementing the object and purpose of the Act. 4. Mr.Gilani states that the apathy is not on the part of the State Government but the Charity Commissioner. This is strongly refuted by 4 Mr.Gangal who stated that the proposal is sent to the State Government which is pending with them. The stand taken by the State Government is in respect of the package in the proposal sent by the Charity Commissioner which hardly comes to Rs.4/5 crores but no proposal has been received by the State Government to utilize the huge sum of Rs.247 crores. It appears now that the Government has become aware of the problem and have constituted three Committees for regions like Vidharba, Marathawada and rest of Maharashtra to identify, suggest and help in preparing the plans and estimates for the infrastructural development, like acquiring land, constructing buildings for office premises and residential quarters etc. in the long term plan. We have already observed that this is still at the infant stage. What we find from the affidavit of the two authorities is that they are trying to put the blame on each other, rather than taking any concrete steps for utilization of the funds. 5. Mr.P.B. Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. The Salvation Army, Western India Territory and The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Shri Lohana Maha Paridhad, A Public Trust reported in (1975) 1 Supreme Court Cases 509 for seeking interim relief. On considering the aforesaid decisions, we are prima facie satisfied that more than sufficient fnds are lying with Charity Commissioner to meet its expenses. 5 6. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, we are inclined to pass interim order in terms of prayer clause (b) with liberty to the Charity Commissioner as well as the State Government through the Principal Secretary and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya to move this court as and when necessity of funds known as Public Trust Administration Funds arises so that after hearing the parties, the court can pass appropriate orders. The interim order should not be misconstrued that this court has restrained the Charity Commissioner to spend the funds already lying with the Charity Commissioner for its requirement. In so far as prayer clause (c) is concerned, this court has already passed an order on 27.02.08. 7. Application stands disposed of accordingly. ( J. N. Patel, J) (Smt.R.P.Sondurbaldota, J)