1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2009 (Govindrao Ramsingh Rathod vs. Vasant Namdeorao Bhutade) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. APRIL 01, 2009. The matter is being heard from last about two dates. After hearing Shri Gilda, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Gaikwad, learned counsel for the respondent, it became clear that the question whether the principles of natural justice have been complied with and the question whether a public trust has inherent power to remove trustee from its Board, crops up for consideration. Shri Gilda, learned counsel wants to rely upon the provisions of General Clauses Act and certain judgments to show that power to appoint constitutes and includes power also to remove. He contends that Section 41-D of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, does not in any way take away this inherent power of the Trust which is available to every democratic body of self governance. Shri Gaikwad, learned counsel, on the 2 other hand, has contended that the respondent was not appointed by the Board of Trustees i.e. Managing Committee which has passed the impugned resolution and he was appointed by the Charity Commissioner while appointing first Board of Trustees upon formation of Scheme. He further states that if the argument of inherent powers or then provisions of General Clauses Act are allowed to be invoked, Section 41-D itself is rendered infructuous. He relies upon the Scheme of a Trust to contend that when scheme does not envisage any such powers in Board of Trustees, the application of mind concurrently by all authorities must be upheld. He further states that when there is no power in the Trust, whether principles of natural justice are complied with or not is a secondary question. The parties were heard on this question earlier also and time was given to them to address on it. I have heard both the counsel today again. I have perused the impugned judgments. I find that the availability of power to the Trustees in the matter has not been gone into in the light of provisions of General Clauses Act or then the availability of inherent power to every body of self governance by the authorities, probably as the questions were not raised before them. Similarly, 3 prima facie, I find that the evidence of the removed trustee particularly his cross examination has not been looked into to record a finding of violation of principles of nature justice. Both the questions are interdependent and if there is no power, the question of compliance with principles of natural justice may not arise, if the power is available the question of principles of natural justice may arise. However, as the authorities have not considered this aspect and the parties did not get an opportunity to address the authority in this respect by pointing out the relevant provisions, I am inclined to remand the matter to the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Amravati, for taking fresh decision in accordance with law on both these questions as early as possible and preferably by 31st July 2009. It is made clear that the authority shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in the impugned orders by the higher authorities and even by this Court in present order. The authority shall evaluate the controversy independently after hearing the respective counsel. The parties are at liberty to lead additional evidence in support of compliance of principles of natural justice only. Shri Gaikwad, learned counsel states that 4 till the Deputy Charity Commissioner decides the matter afresh, the parties should be directed to maintain status quo so that the position prevailing as on today should not be changed. Shri Gilda, learned counsel states that such interim prayer was rejected by the authorities below. It is apparent that the Deputy Charity Commissioner is required to reconsider the matter again and hence at least till the said authority decides the matter afresh, the position prevailing as on today should not be changed. Accordingly, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as on today in relation to administration of trust till the Deputy Charity Commissioner decides the matter and then abide by his findings and order. Second Appeal is thus allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.