SSK/909 1 WP.1862.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1862 OF 2011 Bhanudas Raghunath Jadhav ....Petitioner Versus Shri L. P. Jagdale & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. R. S. Apte, Senior Counseil i/b. Mr. N. R. Bubna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ravindra Adsure with Mr. Vitthal Devkhile and Ms. Sangita Surwase, Advocates for respondent nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for respondent no.9. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 23rd MARCH, 2011. P.C.: Heard Mr. Apte, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Adsure, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1,2, 4, 5 & 6 and Mr.Patne, learned AGP for respondent no.9. 2. The petition arises out of the proceedings under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (in short “the Act”). The petitioner claims to be a member of the Sevashram Shikshan Sanstha. He filed an application under Section 41-D of the Act for removal of the respondents from the trusteeship of the said Trust. By an order dated 13th July, 2009, the Joint Charity Commissioner framed charges against the respondents- trustees and the respondents-trustees were suspended and Board of Fit Persons was appointed. This order was challenged by the SSK/909 2 WP.1862.11 respondents/trustees by filing a writ petition. This Court by order dated 22nd October, 2010 disposed of the said petition by confirming the framing of charges against the respondents-trustees. However, so far as suspension of the respondents-trustees was concerned, the said part was set-aside and the matter was remanded back to the Joint Charity Commissioner. The Joint Charity Commissioner after hearing the parties afresh passed an order thereby refusing to suspend the respondents-trustees during the pendency of enquiry under Section 41 D of the Act. This order is challenged before me by filing the aforesaid writ petition. 3. Mr. Apte, learned senior counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the charges framed against the respondents/trustees which are enumerated at page 62 of the petition. He submitted that the charges are of serious nature, and therefore, in the interest of the Trust, the respondents/trustees ought to have been suspended during the pendency of enquiry under Section 41 D of the Act. Mr. Adsure, learned counsel appearing for some of the respondents/trustees, on the contrary, supported the impugned order. He submitted that just and reasonable order is passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner and no interference in the same is called for. 4. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner has considered the charges framed against the respondents/trustees. The charges are mainly based on the transfers of the teachers working in a school run by the Trust. The allegation is that the teachers are transferred illegally. It seems that SSK/909 3 WP.1862.11 contempt proceeding in this regard was also filed in this Court. However, same was subsequently disposed of, as withdrawn. So far as the charges regarding misappropriation of the funds are concerned, it is worth to mention that one Vandana Raut - Headmistress of the School is charged with said offences and criminal trial is pending before the Court of JMFC, Palghar. None of the trustees have been made accused in this trial. 5. In the above circumstances, learned Joint Charity Commissioner was of the opinion that no case is made out for suspension of the respondents/trustees under Clause 3 of Section 41-D of the Act. The discretion exercised by the Joint Charity Commissioner is Judicious. In any case, if the petitioner succeeds finally in the proceeding under Section 41-D of the Act, the Joint Charity Commissioner is duty bound to take action against the respondents/trustees. 6. Mr. Apte, learned senior counsel, relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sri Digyadarsan Rajendra Ramdassjivaru & The State of Andhra Pradhesh - 1969(1) Supreme Court Cases 844 and a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Vijay K. Mehta & Ors. Versus Charu K. Mehta & Ors. - 2009(2) Bom.C.R.542. In the case before the Supreme Court, the question was of suspension of Madadhipathi on the ground of unsoundness of mind. So far as the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Vijay K. Mehta (supra) is concerned, the facts are distinguishable, and therefore, and ratio of the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the present case. SSK/909 4 WP.1862.11 7. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 8. The Joint Charity Commissioner, however, in the interest of justice and to put an end to all the controversies shall endeavour to dispose the petitioner’s application under Section 41 D as expeditiously as possible. 9. In the interest of justice, interim relief granted by this Court on 3rd March, 2011 and continued from time to time shall remain in operation for a period of two weeks from today. (RANJIT MORE, J.)