:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 5570 OF 2006 Ashok R.Palande ....Petitioner versus Sant Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan Committee and Ors. ....Respondents. Mr.A.Y. Sakhare Sr.Adv i/by.S.S.Kulkarni for the petitioner. Mr.M.G.Vasudev with Mr.M.G.Gawade for the respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 5TH FEBRUARY, 2008 JUDGEMENT : 1. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an Order dated 5.8.2006 which has been passed by the :2: Learned District Judge, Pune. 2. The petitioner before me had filed a Writ Petition No. 549 of 2006 and the challenge therein was to an order passed by the District Judge, Pune on 16.7.2005. 3. The said Writ Petition was disposed off on 7.4.2006 by following order and directions : "(a) the impugned order dated 16th July, 2003 is set aside; (b) Learned District Judge to take steps to appoint trustees and for that purpose, he shall take into consideration the list of 24 persons forwarded by trustees vide communication dated 22nd June, 2004. (c) If the learned Judge is of the view that the ratio of five names per each vacancy which is required to be maintained, cannot be maintained, as the persons whose names are included in the list of 24 are otherwise ineligible, then, it will be open for him to call for fresh names/applications. (d) In any event, the learned Judge to strictly abide by the Scheme and more particularly Clauses 3 and 3A. (e) Entire exercise to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Till the same is completed as above, the existing Trustees shall carry on day to day management and no major policy decisions will be taken by them. :3: Rule is made absolute accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. 4. The facts in brief are as follows :- 5. On 11th December, 1937 the District Court in Civil Suit No. 7 of 1934 settled the scheme for the management of the Sansthan, framed in 1852, by issuing directions necessary to supplement the scheme. The Trust in question is known as Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan, Alandi in District. Pune. Shree Sant Dnyaneshwar is known throughout the spiritual world and particularly Maharashtra as an Intellectual Saint. His teachings and works are respect and reversed by countless number of people. The Scheme was framed for proper and efficient administration of the Trust. The District Judge, Pune was chosen as a person who enjoys Trust and confidence of all concerned including followers of the Saint. :4: 6. The scheme came to be modified by the said directions. On 16th November, 1939 the scheme modified by the District Court in abovesaid suit came to be further modified with regard to Clause (3) and further clause (3a) is inserted. Earlier, Clause (3) modified by the District Court contemplated that any vacancy can be filled by appointment of District Judge from amongst nomination for cooption by the committee. However, the said clause came to be modified and it was clarified that District Judge acts "persona designata" and he will fill up vacancy in the Committee from among those nominated for cooption by committee provided that the committee to nominate not less than five names for each vacancy that may occur and further the District Judge is also conferred with a power to call for further names from trustees if necessary. Clause 3(b) prescribed maximum age limit of 71 years. Further, clause (3a) came to be inserted by consent whereby maximum tenure was prescribed for office of trustee which was not provided earlier by District Court and further continuation of tenure is permitted beyond :5: the period of seven years provided he is re-appointed. 7. In view of this background, it is clear that District Judge is vested with power of appointment by selection out of list of minimum five persons nominated by committee and if he is not satisfied with said list of nominated candidate, then, he has power to call for further list. Further by virtue of clause (3a) tenure comes to an end upon expiry of seven years, provided trustee is not re-appointed. In short, it is incumbent upon the Learned District Judge to follow the procedure envisaged in the scheme for appointment/re-appointment failing which appointment/re-appointment is not valid. 8. Mr.Ramchandra Nagesh Gohal came to be appointed and he retired with effect from 1st August 2001 on completion of seven years tenure. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, a resolution is passed by the then trustees and they recommended five names for appointing one trustee in the vacancy of Mr.Gohal vide Resolution dated 5th :6: October, 2001. On 20th October 1996 one Mr.S.V.Joshi came to be appointed as Trustee of the respondent no.1 for a period of seven years and his term of appointment was to expire by end of 19th October, 2003. Similarly, Mr.Jadhav came to be appointed on 21st November 1996 for a period of seven years and his term was to expire on or before 9th November 2003. 9. Thereafter, on 20th October, 2003 respondent no.1 in its meeting passed various resolutions. The respondent no.1 passed a resolution at subject No.4427. It is specifically mentioned in the said resolution that the period of Mr.Joshi and Jadhav was expiring on 13th October, 2003 an 8th December 2003. It further mentions that Mr.Joshi has applied for re-appointment. Therefore, there was a discussion in the meeting regarding their re-appointment. The respondent no.1 vide its resolution no.4427 resolved that they will apply for re-appointment of Mr.Joshi and Mr.Jadhav as trustees, to the District Judge, Pune. :7: 10. The Learned District Judge passed order observing that Mr.Joshi shall stand retired with effect from 21st October 2003 afternoon. The proposal for his re-appointment is turned down by him. The District Judge vide order dated 5th December, 2003 further noted retirement of Mr.Jadhav with effect from 8th December 2003 and the proposal of re-appointment was turned down by him. The District Judge vide letter dated 4th June 2004 called upon the Trust to forward list of candidates for appointment/re-appointment as trustee i.e. for filling of vacancies. It is a matter of record that the then Chief Trustee viz., Dr.Suresh Garsole prepared list of 24 persons for appointment as Trustee and forwarded it to the learned District Judge, Pune. On 24th January 2005, the District Court called upon the respondent no.1 to forward list of candidates. 11. On 28th January 2005, the then Chief Trustee Ashok Chandgude filed an application under Section 47 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 before the Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra. Same was not :8: accepted by him. On 22nd February 2005 the then Chief Trustee filed Writ Petition No. 1065 of 2005 for seeking direction to learned Charity Commissioner to hear and decide application under Section 47 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. This court passed an interim direction on 4th March 2005 directing Charity Commissioner to hear and decide the application under Section 47. The Charity Commissioner vide his judgment and order dated 1st April 2005 disposed off application under Section 47 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. It appears from the order passed by him that he has gone through the scheme and according to Clause (3) he had interviewed 24 persons and out of the list of 24 persons sent by respondent no.1, he had appointed the above persons as a stop gap arrangement till the vacancy is filled by the District Judge, Pune. 12 Thereafter, it is the grievance of the petitioner, that the District Judge overlooked the earlier orders dated 21st October 2003 and 5th December 2003 passed by the then District Judge and further ignored clause 3 and gave effect to the :9: resolution No.4427 of re-appointment of respondent nos.4 and 5 to the earlier Writ Petition vide the impugned order. 13. It is in the above backdrop that the directions have been issued. 14. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the order passed by this court on 5.8.2006, the District Judge has passed an Order and despite the Sansthan Committee forwarding the names of 15 persons for three vacancies, which included the name of the petitioner, with special recommendation, the District Judge has chosen to ignore this recommendation and made appointment of Sudhir Dnyaneshwar Pimpale Respondent No.2 to this Writ Petition as trustee for a period of 7 years. In other words, the Petitioner has not been appointed. Insofar as, the petitioner’s appointment/recommendation is concerned, the District Judge has observed that he is a lawyer by profession. He was a trustee of Ranjangaon Ganpati Devasthan since 29th September, 1998 and another :10: Educational Trust in Pune district. He was appointed as temporary trustee on 1.04.2005. Although his Biodata included all this, during personal interview the learned Judge found him not to be aware of the teachings of Sant Dnyaneshwar and his literary work. He is also found to be involved in two criminal cases lodged by the Shikrapur Police Station vide C.R. No.31 of 2006 and C.R.No. 32 of 2006 under Sections 143, 147 and 325 of I.P.C. 15. Mr.Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that, the petitioner has been working as a Trustee and his name has been recommended. Even the present Chief Trustee of Ranjangaon Ganpati Devasthan has appreciated his work. The Learned District Judge however appointed Shri Sudhir Dnyaneshwar Pimpale overlooking all recommendations. The District Judge was to go by Clauses 3 and 3(A) of the scheme. The scheme is clear as is observed by this court in its earlier judgment. In such circumstances, the Learned District Judge has committed an error apparent in refusing to appoint the petitioner and rejecting his :11: recommendation. The Learned Judge has carved out some criteria which cannot be said to be germane or relevant. The trust is being managed by persons from all walks of life. The petitioner has been working selflessly for the Trust. There are no complaints. He was rendering legal services as well in times of necessity. The petitioner is a follower of Sant Dnyaneshwar and has been associated with the trust. The refusal to appoint the petitioner is ex-facie, erroneous and vitiated. The petitioner is not involved in any of the criminal cases. His name is not mentioned in any of the C.R.’s. In such circumstances, the action on the part of the District Judge in not appointing the petitioner is liable to be interfered with, under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 16. On the other hand Mr.Vasudev appearing for the respondent no.1, submits that the impugned order does not require any interference under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as, the petitioner has no right to be appointed. All that could have been claimed is the right to be :12: considered. That the petitioner has been considered is not denied. Further, the District Judge was well within her powers when she interviewed the candidates personally and took a decision. She has reached a fair and a honest decision with which one may agree or disagree. However, as long as Arbitrariness or malafides are not attributed, this court cannot interfere. 17. After considering the rival contentions, it is apparent to me that the Learned Judge has in pursuance of the order passed by this court, so also, in consonance with the scheme, firstly held a meeting and called upon the committee members to forward the names of five persons per vacancy for appointment of trustees. On 5.6.2006, the Sansthan Committee forwarded the names alongwith the Biodata of fifteen persons for three vacancies. The Sansthan Committee which made the special recommendations included the present petitioner and two others. Thus, the list of 24 persons mentioned in this Court’s order formed the basis of appointment. The Learned District Judge held :13: personal interviews from 26.6.2006 to 12.7.2006. She has observed that insofar as the subject Trust is concerned, the position of the Trustee requires that he must be a respectable, humble, service oriented and totally devoted person. He must possess knowledge of the teachings of Sant Dnyaneshwar and sincere desire to abide by the same. This is the yardstick which she has applied for the appointment of trustees. While it may be true that she has made reference to some criminal cases against the petitioner, however, the fact remains that all other aspects pertaining to him have also been considered by her. She has found one person from amongst the interviewed lot to be fit enough. She has assigned reasons for not considering the other names including that of the petitioner. The petitioner during interview was not found to be conversant with the teachings of Sant Dnyaneshwar and his works. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the decision of the District Judge which is in consonance with the orders and directions of this court and the Scheme, does not require any interference under Article 226 and 227 of the :14: Constitution of India. The petitioner had been a Trustee earlier and interviewed for the purposes of his continuation. That he is not found to be fit for the post after the interview, does not mean that the decision, not to appoint him, is arbitrary, grossly unfair, unjust, so as to warrant interference under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 18. Consequently, the Writ Petition fails. Ad-interim order, if any, granted by this court to stand vacated. No costs. ********