- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2341/2009 Sheela Parshuram Patole. ...Petitioner.. Versus Sunderabai Apang Shikshan Va Prashikshan Prasarak Mandal, Aurangabad, and six others. ...Respondents... ..... Shri Shrikant Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Shri P.V. Langhe, Advocate h/f Shri V.R. Langhe, Advocate for respondent nos.1 & 2. Respondent nos.3 to 7 served. Respondent no.8 deleted as per leave of Court dated 19.6.2009. ..... CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 05.09.2009 PER COURT: 1] Heard learned counsel for petitioner and respondent nos.1 & 2. 2] By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is challenging the order dated 21.8.2008 passed by Joint Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad, in Inquiry No.11/2007. Petitioner – original complainant filed application u/s 41-D of the Bombay Public Trust Act in the office of Joint Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad, on the basis that she is teacher in one of the schools being run by the trust in - 2 - Dhule District and is a beneficiary. On the basis of petitioner’s application, the Joint Charity Commissioner framed following issues: 1] Whether the applicant has locus standi to initiate the present inquiry ? 2] Whether the respondents have made persistent default in submission of the accounting returns and reports ? 3] Whether the respondent trustees have committed breach of duty by not holding election and not filing change report from time to time ? 4] Whether the respondents have committed breach of duty and breach of trust by giving appointment to the near relations in the employment of the trust ? 5] Whether the applicant proves that the respondent trustees have willfully disobeyed the direction of the A.C.C.in Inq.No.20/06 of remaining present ? 6] Whether the applicant proves that the respondent trustees have committed breach of duty by failing to pursue the object of the trust ? 7] Whether the respondents are liable to be removed from trusteeship under Section 41-D of the Bombay Trusts Act, 1950 ? 8] What order ? “ 3] One of the issues is about locus standi of petitioner to initiate the inquiry u/s 41-D of the Bombay Public Trust Act. The Joint Charity Commissioner held that petitioner failed to establish her locus standi for filing application u/s 41-D of the said Act. Para 14 of the said order reads as under: “True it is that a Charity Commissioner may proceed against the trustees under Section 41D in four situations i.e. on an application of a trustee or on an application of a person having interest in the trust or on a report under Section 41B or suo motu. Thus, the Charity Commissioner is authorized and empowered to exercise supervision and control over the trustees of a public trust. However, the inquiries initiated in such four ways would certainly stand on different footings. Had the Legislature intended to allow the Charity - 3 - Commissioner to take cognizance suo motu in initiating a proceeding under Section 41D, it would not have referred to and provided other three sources. Hypothetically, any deviation by the trustees is expected to be inquired into by the authorities under the B.P.T.Act, 1950 and there would not have been any need for providing for any application to be moved by trustee or a person having interest in the trust. When inquiry under that Section is initiated in a particular manner, it should be pursued in the same category. When the applicant in the matter before hand has initiated this proceeding on the assumption that she is a person having interest in the trust being its beneficiary she must establish her locus standi. Therefore, when she is not the member of the public trust which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, she cannot be said to be a person having interest in the Trust.” 4] It is specifically held by the Joint Charity Commissioner that petitioner is not the member of a public trust, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and, therefore, she can not be a person having interest in the trust. On 27.8.2007, when the matter was on Board for admission and hearing, I called upon the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner to explain whether on 7.4.2006, when petitioner made complaint to the Joint Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad, whether petitioner was in service of respondent – trust, as she has stated in her application. Pursuant to the said query, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner filed affidavit in rejoinder dated 4.9.2009. In this rejoinder, petitioner stated that against the termination order, she preferred Appeal No.3/2005 before the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Nasik, on 20.4.2005. The said appeal came to be dismissed on 18.10.2007. Thereafter, petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.2839/2008 in this Court. Admittedly, there is no stay to the termination order of petitioner and, therefore, the day on which petitioner filed application dated 7.4.2006, she was not in service. Inspite of knowing these - 4 - facts, petitioner made a false statement in her application dated 7.4.2006. This itself shows mala fide intention of petitioner to bring pressure on respondent – trust. Not only that, though the Joint Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad, passed order dated 21.8.2008 directing authority to hold sue motu enquiry against respondent – trust u/s 41-D, petitioner filed present writ petition on the ground that she is beneficiary of respondent – trust. Instead of going into merits of the matter, I am dismissing this writ petition on the ground that petitioner made false statement for claiming order u/s 41-D of the Bombay Public Trust Act. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed summarily with cost of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) to be deposited by petitioner in this Court within four weeks from today. If the cost of Rs.25,000/- is not deposited by petitioner within four weeks from today, the Collector, Dhule, is directed to recover the same as land revenue under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. 5] On merits also, the Joint Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad, held that petitioner failed to prove her case. The observation of the Joint Charity Commissioner in para 20 itself shows that petitioner failed to produce any cogent material and/or evidence to show that respondent – trust has disobeyed any direction of the Assistant Charity Commissioner in Inquiry No.20/2006 by not remaining present or has committed breach of duty or breach of trust by appointing near relations and by not pursuing the objects. 6] As petitioner made false statement, I do not find it necessary to go in details on merits of the present writ petition and the same is dismissed summarily. (K.K. Tated, J.) ndk/c590921