1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.162 of 2005 APPELLANTS :- (1) Jagannath Jankilal Agrawal Ori. N.As. (Transposed as Res. no.9) (2) Narayan Dagadusing Jadhav Police Inspector, Rly. Police Qr. A/15, 3 rd Floor, Dadar (E), Mumbai. (3) Satyajit Bhikaji Chavan - DELETED ...VERSUS... RESPONDENT :- (1) Ramdhan Harising Jadhav aged 80 years, Agriculturist, (2) Parashram Bhavsingh Chavhan, aged 60 years, Agriculturist. (3) Bharat Chandusingh Chavhan, aged 33 years, Agriculturist. (4) Ravi Hemant Chavhan, aged 22 years, Agriculturist. (5) Rajkumar Chandusingh Chavhan, Agriculturist. (6) Mohan Gulabsingh Pawar, Pensioner. (7) Sau. Vandana Bharat Chavhan, Household work. Nos. 1 to 7 r/o Palodi, Tq. Manora, District Washim. (8) Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati Region, Amravati. 2 (9) Jagannath s/o Jankilal Agrawal, Occupation : Business, r/o Digras, Distt. Yavatmal. ------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. V.K. Paliwal Advocate for appellant. Mr. S.P. Kshirsagar Advocate for respondents 1 to 7. ------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI,J. DATED : 30.11.2011 ORAL JUDGMENT Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 3.2.2005 passed in Application 1 of 2004 under Section 47 of The Bombay Public Trusts Act by the Joint Charity Commissioner, removing the appellants and appointing respondents 3 to 7, the present appeal was preferred by the appellants. 2. During the pendency of this appeal, appellants 1 and 3 withdrew this appeal. It is only appellant no.2 who is prosecuting the appeal. In support of appeal, Mr.Paliwal, learned counsel for appellant no.2, argued that under Section 47 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, there cannot be an order made for removal of any trustee and it becomes an order without jurisdiction. He further argued that the appointment of other trustees made by the Joint Charity Commissioner is also illegal. He further argued that application under Section 47 of the Act itself was not maintainable since there were trustees- three in number who were living. 3. Per contra, Mr.Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the respondents, opposed the appeal and argued that the proceedings had taken place in the year 2005, i.e. the impugned judgment and order, and in no case order under Section 47 would continue to operate in violation of 3 tenure prescribed by Rules and Regulations or the bye-laws of the particular trust. According to Mr.Kshirsagar, subsequent to the impugned judgment and order some changes have taken place and they have been reported to the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Washim. Some changes which had taken place in the year 1995 were also reported to the said authority and are pending for adjudication. He has filed pursis dated 30.11.2011 which is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. Mr.Paliwal informs that appeals are also pending. 4. I have perused the impugned judgment and order dated 3.2.2005. Suffice it to say that under Section 47 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, trustees cannot be removed since the course which can be adopted is only by taking recourse to Section 41-D of the Act and, therefore, the order of removal made by the impugned judgment and order only in relation to appellant no.2 will have to be set aside. It is a fact, as contended by Mr.Kshirsagar, that order under Section 47 of the Act cannot last long or beyond the tenure prescribed by rules and regulations or bye-laws of the trust. 5. Looking to the fact that the Change Reports filed and indicated in the pursis “X” are still pending adjudication, it will have to be held that order under Section 47 of the Act in the matter of appointing trustees must give its way to the adjudication which is required to be made for decision of Change Reports mentioned in the aforesaid pursis marked as “X”. The arrangement made by this Court on 11.2.2009 and complied by the Joint Charity Commissioner regarding appointment of trustees will not be disrupted and will continue to operate till the decision of the said Change Reports. In that view of the matter, I 4 make the following order. ORDER (i) F.A. No. 162 of 2005 is partly allowed. Order removing trustee-appellant no.2 is set aside. (ii) Assistant Charity Commissioner, Washim, is directed to decide the Change Report Nos. (i) 18/2009, (ii) 201/2009, (iii) 54/2009, (iv) 407/1995 and (v) 451/95 mentioned in the pursis “X”, by following required procedure, as expeditiously as possible and in any case within six months from the date of receipt of Writ of this Court. (iii) The arrangement made by this Court and adopted by the Joint Charity Commissioner shall continue to operate till the decision of the said Change Reports. No order as to costs. JUDGE /TA/