1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4174 OF 1996 Venkatrao s/o Mukundrao Nemaniwar aged 48 years, occupation service resident of Welmapura, Kinwat, District Nanded. ..Petitioner versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Joint Charity Commissioner Aurangabad. 3. Ramlu s/o Shankar Nilawar. age 53 years, occup.business r/o Kinwat, District Nanded. 4. Narayanrao s/o Mukundrao Nemaniwar, age 52 years, occupation agriculture of Welmapura, Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. 5. Saraswati Shikshan Sanstha, Kinwat, Dist.Nanded,through the Secretary. ..Respondents. Shri A.G.Godhamgaonkar, Advocate, for petitioner. Smt.S.B.Wadmare, AGP, for Respondent No.1 and 2. Shri P.V.Mandlik, Senior Counsel for Respondent No.3 ------ 2 Coram: P.R.Borkar J. Date: July 29,2009. Oral Judgment 1. This writ petition is filed by the President of Respondent No.5 Trust, being aggrieved by the amended charges framed on 7.6.1996 by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad, under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 ("B.P.T. Act" for short). By this petition, he seeks quashment and dropping of the said charges. 2. Some of the facts are undisputed at this stage. In 1980, 12 persons established Respondent No.5 Trust, namely, Saraswati Shikshan Sanstha, Kinwat and they became first trustees of said public trust. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were earlier Secretary and Joint Secretary of the trust and petitioner has been President of the trust. On 30.11.1995, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 made application to the Joint Charity Commissioner under Section 41-D of the B.P.T. Act for holding enquiry against the petitioner. The charges framed are on the basis of application by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Those charges were the subject-matter of Writ Petition No.2410 of 1996 and the said Writ Petition was allowed and the charges framed by the Joint Charity Commissioner 3 were set aside holding that those were too vague and need modification. Thereafter, amended charges came to be framed by the Joint Charity Commissioner on 7.6.1996. As against the same this writ petition is filed. 3. Heard Shri A.G.Godhamgaonkar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Smt. Wadmare, learned AGP for Respondent No.1 and 2 and Shri P.V.Mandlik, Senior Counsel, for respondent Nos.3. 4. Same vagueness and ambiguity still persists even in the amended charges inspite of directions by this Court in Writ Petition No.2410 of 1996. The first charge is in respect of amount of Rs. 12,28,450/= shown as total of loans obtained from different persons in the returns ending on 31.3.1995 without obtaining prior sanction from the Joint Charity Commissioner under Section 36- A(3) of the BPT Act. In this first charge, there is another charge that the the petitioner had collected rent for three institutions although he was entitled to claim rent only for one institution. The details of the amounts of individual loans, persons from whom loans were obtained and the dates are not mentioned which need to be mentioned. Thus the first charge is composite charge. There should have been separate charges. It ought to have been clarified whether three institutes were in one building or in 4 separate buildings and how much rent was collected for each of the institutes and in which year and whether the petitioner made any individual representation and whether he could be made liable individually in personal capacity. The first charge, therefore, requires modification. 5. So far as second charge is concerned, the period for which the charge was framed, ought to have been mentioned in the said charge. The particulars of the building or buildings in respect of which rent was paid and the period of such rent should have been mentioned so that the petitioner would have been in a position to meet the charge properly and effectively. 6. The third charge is also wholly ambiguous. The first part of this charge is that on the date of interview itself without obtaining consent of the managing committee selection of candidates was made. The date on which this has happened is not mentioned nor the name/s of the post or candidates in respect of whom this has happened, is/are mentioned. Moreover, whether this amounts to misconduct or it is a mere irregularity will also have to be examined. Secondly, in the third charge, it is alleged that the petitioner did not actually disburse the scholarship amounts to the students, although the total amount was received by him and he merely obtained signatures of the 5 students and shown those on record and thus misappropriated the amount of scholarship. The Charity Commissioner has to find out whether there was material before him to come to a conclusion that the scholarship amounts of the students were not actually paid to them and charge should have specifically mentioned with dates of disbursements and names of the students to whom scholarship amounts were not disbursed. It should also have been stated or explained as to on which documents false signatures were made. The third charge also includes charge that the petitioner received huge amount for the trust for which receipts were issued under the signature of the clerk, but the amounts so received have not been credited to the cashbook of the trust and thus the petitioner committed misappropriation in respect of the amounts received for the trust. This also is a totally vague charge because the details of the dates of receipts, amounts received should have been mentioned. 7. Without elaborating anything more, it has to be observed that the amended charges framed on 7.6.1996 are totally vague and ambiguous and, therefore, it is not possible for a reasonably prudent person to meet the same. There are also composite charges which need to be separated. This can only be done if the learned Joint Charity Commissioner applies his mind to the material 6 available before him and then find out whether there is prima facie material before him to start enquiry under Section 41-D (1) of the B.P.T. Act in respect of particular item of misconduct alleged. 8. With observations as above, this writ petition is allowed. Amended charges framed by learned Joint Charity Commissioner on 7.6.1996 are held to be not properly framed. The Joint Charity Commissioner is directed to decide framing of charges afresh after applying his mind to the material placed before him for consideration and proceed further. 9. Shri P.V.Mandlik, Senior Counsel for the respondent prays that specific time limit be provided for deciding the matter by the Joint Charity Commissioner. At this stage, it is informed to me that at present post of Joint Charity Commissioner at Aurangabad is vacant. It is directed that whenever new officer takes over charge, he shall consider and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible pnd/wp4174.96 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)