1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.16 OF 2004 1. Vidhyak Samiti, Pimpalner, Taluka Sakri, Dist. Dhule through it's President Mr.Shankarrao Bhagaji Mali, Age 66 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Taluka Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 2. Shankarrao Bhagaji Mali, President, Vidhayak Samiti, Pimpalner, Taluka Sakri Dist. Dhule, Age 66 years, Occ. Agriculturist, R/o PimpLner Taluka Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 3. Dr.Shri Deelipsing Daulatsing Rajput, Vice President,Vidhayak Samiti, Pimpalner Taluka Sakri, Dist.Dhule, Age 35 years, Occ. Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Taluka Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 4. Ambadas Punju Shimpi, Secretary, Vidhayak Samiti, Pimpalner, Taluka Sakri, Dist.Dhule, Age 80 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Taluka Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 5. Yashwant Krushnaji Suryawanshi, Treasurer, Vidhyak Samiti, Pimpalner, Taluka Sakri, Dist.Dhule, Age 85 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Taluka Sakri, Dist. Dhule. 2 6. Ramchandra Waru Patil, Trustee, Vidhyak Samiti, Pimpalner, Taluka Sakri, Dist.Dhule, Age 85 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Taluka Sakri, Dist. Dhule. 7. Bhatu Pundalik Mahajan, Trustee, Vidhyak Samiti, Pimpalner, Taluka Sakri Dist. Dhule. 8. Yashwant Zipru Bava, Trustee, Vidhyak Samiti Pimpalner, Taluka Sakri, Dist.Dhule, Age 75 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pilpalner, Taluka Sakri, Dist.Dhule. ...Appellants. (Appellant Nos.3 to 8 are deleted. They are not party in L.C.). Versus 1. Sahebrao Panditrao Patil deceased through L.Rs. 1A. Virsen Tukaram Gujrathi, Age 80 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Tal.Sakri, Dist. Dhule. (Respondent No.1A deleted as per Court's order dt.25.1.2008). 1B. Shankar Dagdu Wani, Age 65 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Tal.Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 1C. Vinayak Dagaji Shinde, Age 45 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Tal.Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 3 1D. Dadaji Tukaram Chaudhari, Age 55 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Tal.Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 1E. Utam Sahadu Mali, Age 50 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Tal.Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 1F. Mahendra Ramrao Gangurde, Age 35 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Tal.Sakri, Dist. Dhule. 1G. Rajendra Laxman Deshmukh, Age 50 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Tal,Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 1H. Gulab Madhukar Gavale, Age 30 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Tal.Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 1I. Kamalakar Shankar Bole, Age 67 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Tal.Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 1J. Sanjay Madhavrao Patil, Age 30 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Tal.Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 1K. Ramrao Panditrao Patil, Age 70 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Tal.Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 1L. Kishor Ramrao Marathe, Age 35 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Phule Colony, Near Prakash Talkies, Dhule. 1M. Sham Barku Shirsath, Age 35,Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Tal. Sakri, 4 Dist. Dhule. 2. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, Dhule. 3. The Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Region, Pune. ... Respondents. ... WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.18 OF 2004. 1. Vidhyak Samiti, Pimpalner, Taluka Sakri, Dist. Dhule through it's President Mr.Shankarrao Bhagaji Mali, Age 66 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Taluka Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 2. Shankarrao Bhagaji Mali, President, Vidhayak Samiti, Pimpalner, Taluka Sakri Dist. Dhule, Age 66 years, Occ. Agriculturist, R/o PimpLner Taluka Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 3. Dr.Shri Deelipsing Daulatsing Rajput, Vice President,Vidhayak Samiti, Pimpalner Taluka Sakri, Dist.Dhule, Age 35 years, Occ. Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Taluka Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 4. Ambadas Punju Shimpi, Secretary, Vidhayak Samiti, Pimpalner, Taluka Sakri, Dist.Dhule, Age 80 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Taluka Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 5. Yashwant Krushnaji Suryawanshi, 5 Treasurer, Vidhyak Samiti, Pimpalner, Taluka Sakri, Dist.Dhule, Age 85 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Taluka Sakri, Dist. Dhule. 6. Ramchandra Waru Patil, Trustee, Vidhyak Samiti, Pimpalner, Taluka Sakri, Dist.Dhule, Age 85 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Taluka Sakri, Dist. Dhule. 7. Bhatu Pundalik Mahajan, Trustee, Vidhyak Samiti, Pimpalner, Taluka Sakri Dist. Dhule. 8. Yashwant Zipru Bava, Trustee, Vidhyak Samiti Pimpalner, Taluka Sakri, Dist.Dhule, Age 75 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pilpalner, Taluka Sakri, Dist.Dhule. ...Appellants. (Appellant Nos.3 to 8 are deleted. They are not party in L.C.). Versus 1. Sahebrao Panditrao Patil deceased through L.Rs. 1A. Virsen Tukaram Gujrathi, Age 80 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Tal.Sakri, Dist. Dhule. (Respondent No.1A deleted as per Court's order dt.25.1.2008). 1B. Shankar Dagdu Wani, Age 65 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Tal.Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 6 1C. Vinayak Dagaji Shinde, Age 45 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Tal.Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 1D. Dadaji Tukaram Chaudhari, Age 55 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Tal.Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 1E. Utam Sahadu Mali, Age 50 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Tal.Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 1F. Mahendra Ramrao Gangurde, Age 35 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Tal.Sakri, Dist. Dhule. 1G. Rajendra Laxman Deshmukh, Age 50 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Tal,Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 1H. Gulab Madhukar Gavale, Age 30 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Tal.Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 1I. Kamalakar Shankar Bole, Age 67 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Tal.Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 1J. Sanjay Madhavrao Patil, Age 30 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Tal.Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 1K. Ramrao Panditrao Patil, Age 70 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Tal.Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 1L. Kishor Ramrao Marathe, Age 35 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Phule Colony, Near Prakash 7 Talkies, Dhule. 1M. Sham Barku Shirsath, Age 35,Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Pimpalner, Tal. Sakri, Dist. Dhule. 2. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, Dhule. 3. The Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Region, Pune. ... Respondents. Mr.B.R.Warma, advocate for the appellants. Mr.V.D.Hon, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1B to 1M. Mr.P.P.More, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 21.09.2010. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. Vidhayak Samiti, Pimpalner, Taluka Sakri, Dist.Dhule, is a registered Trust, registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and the Societies Registration Act. The term of the office bearers of the 8 Managing Committee is for three (3) years. The elections were held and two change reports were submitted. Change report bearing No.568/1997 was filed by the present appellants and the change report bearing No.569/1997 was filed by the present Respondents. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, accepted the change report filed by the present Respondents and rejected the change report filed by the present appellants. Against the said judgment, the present appellants preferred appeals before the Joint Charity Commissioner. The Joint Commissioner, dismissed both the appeals. Aggrieved by the decision of the Joint Charity Commissioner, the present appellants preferred Misc.Applications before the District Court, Dhule. 2nd Additional District Judge, Dhule, vide its judgment and order dated 18.2.2003, dismissed both the Misc. Applications. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred these appeals. 3. Mr.B.R.Warma, learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended : 9 (i) That the judgments of the Courts below suffered from perversity inasmuch as the Rules of evidence have not been adhered to; (ii) The negative burden has been cast by the authorities which is against elementary Rules of evidence. (iii) 21 members who were alleged to have been enrolled in meeting dated 25.2.1995 were in fact, not enrolled. There is no evidence in that regard. (iv) Just because of passage of time, the proceeding do not become academic and if it is found that the election which was conducted was tainted with fraud then in such circumstances further consequences and action can be taken against the Respondents. So also if the change report filed by the present appellants is allowed and the change report filed by the present Respondents is rejected then its effect would be the continuance of the appellants as members of the Managing Committee. To buttress his 10 submission, he has relied on the dictum of the learned Single Judge of this Court in case of "Marutirao Vishwanath Bagal and others Vs. Dinkar Kashinath More and others" 2005(1) Bom. C.R. 779. So also another judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of "B.J.Wahane and another Vs.Kamlesh Gangaram Kanoje" 1998 (1) Bom.C.R.563. 4. Per contra, Mr.V.D.Hon, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted : (i) That the proceedings have become purely academic and where no relief can be granted to the appellants, the said appeals can not be entertained and considered. For the said purpose, Mr.Hon, learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Hidayatkhan Bismillakhan Pathan Vs. Vaijnath". (Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 18811/2007 from judgment and order dated 18.7.2007 in SA No.769/2006 of the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad). So also the judgment of this Court in a case of "Jagat Nayansing 11 Swarupsingh Chithere Vs. Swarupsingh Education Society" 1980 Mh.L.J.372. (ii) The appellants were present in the meeting dated 25.2.1995 and they have signed the Minutes. Even in evidence, they could not deny their signatures on the said minutes. Inspite of the fact that they were present in the meeting they did not challenge the membership of those 21 members enrolled therein and it is only while taking objection to the change report in the year 1997, have for the first time challenged their membership. (iii) The appellants have not arrayed all the 21 members as parties whose membership was challenged. (iv) All the three authorities have given a concurrent findings of facts and this Court in its second appellate jurisdiction U/s 100 may not interfere with the said findings of facts as there is no perversity in appreciation of evidence. 12 5. The proceedings before the Assistant Charity Commissioner are quasi judicial in nature. The Rules of evidence may not be strictly applicable. However, the factum of proof would still remain. When both the parties lead their evidence, the concept of burden of proof loses its significance. The authorities taking into account the totality of the evidence and more particularly, the fact that the present appellants were present in the meeting dated 25.2.1995, wherein the 21 new members were enrolled and the fact that they had not challenged the said membership till 1997. The authorities have considered this aspect even it has been considered that the appellants have not categorically denied about the receipt of the agenda of the meeting scheduled on 25.2.1995 i.e. the meeting when the said 21 members were enrolled and of the meeting dt.4.11.1997 i.e. when the elections in question had taken place. The Courts have elaborately discussed the statement of the appellants and have come to the conclusion that the appellants had received the agenda of the meeting. They were also present in 13 the meeting dated 25.2.1995 and thereafter, after evaluating the complete evidence have come to the conclusion about the legality of the meeting held by the Respondents on 4.11.1997. As such the contention of Mr.Warma, that the burden of proof has not been cast properly can not be considered. 6. The judgments which are relied by Mr.Warma, need no debate. As has been held in case of Marutirao Vishwanath Bagal and others Vs. Dinkar Kashinath More and others" cited supra that after due inquiry by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and if the appellants succeed in establishing their contention regarding forgery and fraud, there will be further consequences and action can be taken against the Respondent No.1 need no debate, but in this case the fact is that all the three authorities have concurrently come to the conclusion that the elections were properly held and the 21 memebrs were legally enrolled. So also, the judgment in case of "B.J.Wahane and another Vs. Kamlesh Gangaram Kanoje" cited supra that if the appellants succeed, they would be deemed to have continued. 14 Such a situation does not arise in the present case. 7. Though it is contended by Mr.Warma, that out of 21 members, 12 are before the Court and they are representing the interest of the other members. Such a contention can not be countenanced by law for the simple reason that each and every member has got independent and individual right. It is not a case like representing the estate but a personal right which is sought to be eroded. In view of this fact also that all the members whose membership is questioned are not before the Court, no orders adverse to their interest could have been passed. 8. Is is worth to note that the present change report under question is in respect of elections held on 4.11.1997. The term of the Managing Committee is of three (3) years and since then there are more than three change reports which are submitted. It is submitted at Bar by Mr.Hon, learned counsel that the change reports submitted by the present Respondents have 15 been approved till the elections of the year 2007 and the change reports in respect of the elections held in the year 2009 are pending. Mr.Hon, has rightly relied on the case of Apex Court in the case of "Hidayatkhan Bismillakhan Pathan Vs. Vaijnath" cited supra, wherein the Apex Court has observed thus : "17. It is now a well settled principle of law that a court of law or a superior Tribunal would not entertain an appeal or revision application wherein no effective order can be passed. For the said purpose not only the fact situation as was obtaining on the date of filing of the application shall be taken into consideration but also the events which took place subsequent thereto. 24. Although ordinarily we would have remanded the matter back to the High Court, we clarify that we have exercised our jurisdiction under 16 Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case so as to do complete justice between the parties as also in view of the fact that any further litigation would be unnecessary since no actual relief can be granted to any of the parties thereto in this case." Taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances, no substantial question of law is involved. As such the Second Appeals are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa1604 17